05-07-90 agendaSS I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 16
Agenda, May 7, 1990
Issue Statement
Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues.
Background•
The Richfield Airport Strategy Group has met and reviewed issues
and events related to the airport. R.A.S.G. ha provided
recommendations for policy and strategy implementation. Recent
developments regarding the airport include the following:
• MSP Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan.
The MAC is currently proposing various airfield and terminal
development alternatives for MSP Airport. The MAC will submit a
proposed new runway/terminal plan for the airport on January 15,
1991. Enclosed are the alternative plans proposed for the
airport.
At the May 7, 1990 Council Study Session, Bob Collette will
present some background information of the various runway and
terminal options the MAC is proposing for MSP Airport. He will
discuss the effects each alternative plan will have on the City
of Richfield and the surrounding communities.
® New Ford Town Redevelopment Plan
1. Update on Meetings and Communication Plan.
The staff has continued to present the plan to local
municipalities, agencies, state government officials and various
community groups for visibility, feedback and support. A
schedule is enclosed listing the meetings that have occurred and
proposed meetings.
2. New Ford Town Plan Video Tape.
A preproduction committee meeting was held with the stategy group
and Greatapes (writer and producer) on April 12, 1990. At this
meeting the goals, objectives, script treatment and key players
to be included in the video tape were discussed. The strategy
group advised the video production firm of Richfield's position
of future airport planning to ensure it is properly translated to
the viewers.
Staff has continued to meet with the video production firm to
give information and feedback on the development of the tape.
Greatapes is currently working on the outline, interviewing
various contacts/key players and citizens in the community, and
shooting aerials.
3. Property Acquisition.
The future land uses in New Ford Town and Rich Acres will involve
acquisition of the residential homes for possible airport related
ss i- ~
business. The acquisition of property must be done in a timely
and managed fashion. As a concern, the City does not want to
lose the tax capacity as a result of decreasing property values
or acquisition of properties by the MAC.
• Extension of Runway 4/22.
At the present time, we are waiting for the results of the
environmental impact study being conducted. These results will
become available sometime this summer.
The City of Bloomington supports the extension of the runway only
if it is part of the interactive community planning approach at
MSP Airport.
• Precision Runway Monitoring System (PRMS).
A-video tape provided by D.J. Leary was presented at the strategy
group meeting. describing the PRMS. This new runway monitoring
system will help reduce delays and increase capacity at an
airport. MSP Airport is a possible test site for this monitoring
system due to its location and weather problems. Most of the
delays at MSP Airport are caused by adverse weather conditions.
• FAA Part 150 Funding.
On April 16, 1990, the MAC received approval from the FAA of the
MSP Part 150 Plan. This approval officially makes projects
within the plan (home insulation, land acquisition, purchase
guarantee) eligible for federal funding. The MAC is now
- developing an implementation program for the Part-150 Plan in
conjunction with each city contained in the 1992 LDN Noise
Contour Map (Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Mendota Heights
and Eagan). This plan will define the procedures and phasing for
each city participating in the Part 150 program. MAC will
complete the implementation plan by the end of 1990.
The staff from Richfield and Bloomington met with MAC officials
on April 24 to discuss the Part 150 funding.
Recommended Motion:
With this background, the following recommendations are provided
to address these issues:
o-MSP. Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan.
The strategy group recommended the City of Richfield must
initiate a dialogue with MAC officials to ensure the proposed
airfield and terminal plans will not have a negative impact on
the city. This discussion should be part of the interactive
community planning approach the city is emphasizing for future
airport planning.
The New Ford Town Redevelopment Plan includes a concept proposing
a new West Terminal at MSP Airport. This concept parallels a
proposed terminal option in MAC's Plan. The City of Richfield
must stress the need for anew terminal for capacity enhancement
purposes at MSP to MAC officials, NWA, and influential community
~ i -a~
citizens. NWA will need a new terminal for more gates, multiple
access and added capacity.
It is important for Richfield to work with MAC on this plan to
ensure that Track 1 of the Dual Track .approach is being
adequately addressed for future airport planning as mandated by
the Legislature in 1989.
• New Ford Town Redevelopment Plan.
1. Update on Meetings and Communication Plan.
The strategy group gave recommendations to staff of additional
groups and individuals to include in presentations of the New
Ford Town Redevelopment Plan. The groups recommended include:
the Greater Minnepolis Chamber of Commerce Aviation Committee,
State Advisory Council on Airport Planning, the Senate and House
Subcommittees monitoring airport issues, and the local chamber of
commerce groups.
2. New Ford Town Plan Video Tape.
The strategy group will continue to be involved in the content of
the video tape and reviewing the script to ensure the Richfield
position on future airport planning is properly translated to the
viewers.
3. Property Acquisition.
Charlie LeFevere is working with staff to draft a property
acquisition agreement. There are two options to consider in the
acquisition process:
- MAC would buy the property
would redevelop it;
- the City of Richfield would
of money that would replace
and the City of Richfield
ask from MAC a revenue stream
the lost tax base.
o Extension of Runway 4/22.
The strategy group recommended the City of Richfield should not
concentrate its opposition of the extension of Runway 4/22 itself
but rather the way it is intended to be used. At this time, it
is proposed that 85~ of the take-offs will be to the south
resulting in more traffic over Bloomington and Richfield. This
will cause an increase in noise pressures over the neighborhoods
under these flight paths. Staff will work with MAC planners to
ensure .that both ends of the runway will be used equally for
aircraft operations.
Staff will recommend to MAC officials that the extension of
Runway 4/22 should be part of the interactive planning process
for future airport planning. This proposed expansion improvement
should be discussed along with other proposed plans at MSP
Airport by including surrounding community officials and MAC
officials to initiate a cooperative community planning approach
for airport planning.
S5 I-3
• Precision Runway Monitoring System (PRM3).
The strategy group recommended this video tape should be included
in future airport planning meetings of various organizations for
the state of Minnesota. It demonstrates a way to increase
capacity at the present airport by decreasing delays by
utilizatiing such a system.
Sue Sandahl recommended the video tape should be shown to the
State Advisory Council on Airport Planning. Bob Collette will
develop a fact sheet about this new monitoring system to
accompany presentations_of this video to various organizations.
• FAA Part 150 Funding.
The City of Richfield will work with MAC officials to make sure
the procedures and phasing of projects in the Part 150
Implementation Plan:-coincides with the future land-use plans the
city is proposing for the areas (i.e. New Ford Town and Rich
Acres) that lie in the heavily impacted contours of the MAC 1992
Noise Contour Map. Richfield's priorities include:
1. Property acquisition of homes in the heavily
impacted area located on the 1992 Noise Contour
Map.
2. Sound insulation of homes.
The Richfield and Bloomington city staff will set-up a joint
meeting with the planning staff at MAC in the next month.
Alternative Recommendation:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
May 7, 1990 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the May 7, 1990 Study Session.
Resp f lly submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:kab
Enclosures
5s ~ - ~
NEW FORD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT
COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
Date Time Group/Individual Set-Up Person
1/29/90 3:30 PM Gertrude Ulrich JP
2/1 9:00 AM Bloomington Staff JP
2/2 8:00 AM Freeman (Gertrude JP
Ulrich, Steve Quam,
Edwina Garcia)
2/8 8:30 AM Minneapolis Staff JP
(Bill Barnhart)
2/8 2:00 PM Halloran (JP, SQ, TM, TM
Dick Miller, Jeff Hamiel)
2/8 4:15 PM Mayor Fraser, Staff TM
2/9 8:30. AM Sue Sandahl JP
2/12 8:00 AM Steve Cramer, Freeman Freeman
2/12 9:00 AM Chris Tjornhom, Denny JP
Shulsted
2/12 3:30 PM Press Preview DJL/RS
2/12 5:30 PM Richfield Council, HRA, JP
Planning Commission
2/15 10:00 AM Paula Hanson, Tom Todd, KB
Jill Schultz
2/20 Richfield Chamber JP
2/21 9:00 AM Edina Council/Staff JP
2/21 7:30 PM New Ford Town Public Mtg. JP
2/23 1:30 PM Met Council TAC Advisory JP
Board
2/26 Bill Crawford JP/DF
MnDOT
3/1 2:00 PM MAC Staff (Finney, Fortman, KB
Ryan)
~j ~ ~ ~
3/8 10:00 AM Rep. Bernie Lieder, KB
Rep. Joyce Henry
Air Trans. Subcommittee
of Air Transportation
3/9 8:00 AM General Mgmt. Staff JP
(Richfield)
3/12 1:00 PM Steve Keefe, Met Council JP/SQ/GU
3/12 3:00 PM Bloomington Gen'1 Staff JP
3/13 1:30 PM Senator Dave Durenberger JP
3/13 2:00 PM Met Council Staff (Kari, DF
Case, Kozlak, Diaz)
3/13 4:00 PM Credit Union Board DF
3/14 11:30 AM MAC Consultants JP
(HNTB)
3/19 NOON Bloomington Chamber
3/21 2:00 PM Citizens League JP
Curt Johnson
3/22 7:30 AM Richfield Rotary JP
3/22 9:00 AM Minneapolis Staff JP
(Dick Heath,
Philip Meininger,
Gordon Wagner, Bob Morgan,
Perry Thorvig, Linda Waite)
3/22 11:00 PM FAA (Heath, Meininger, KB
Wagner, Morgan, Thorvig,
Waite)
3/28 -2:00 PM City of Mendota Heights KB
(Tom Lawell, Kevin
Batchelder, Larry
Shaughnessy, Jim Danielson)
4/3 1:00 PM MAC Planning & Environment JP
Committee
4/4 1:30 PM City of Eagan KB
(Tom Hedges, John
Hohenstein)
4/11 2:30 PM Connie Levi KB
(Mpls. Chamber)
ss i -~
4/16 7:00 PM Bloomington City Council JP
4/30 10:00 AM City of St. Paul KB
(Bob Long/Staff)
7/18 Noon Greater Mpls. Chamber of KB
Commerce Aviation Comm.
---- Bloomington Legislators,
Staff (Kathleen Blatz, Bill
Belanger, Joyce Henry, John
Himle)
---- Governor's Staff
---- Hennepin County (Randy
Johnson)
---- NWA KB/Finney
---- Downtown Business JP
---- State Advisory Council KB/Rep.
on Airport Planning Lieder
---- Sen. Schmitz (Senate Local
& Urban Gov't Committee)
---- Minneapolis Rotary
---- St. Paul Chamber/Business
Community
---- N. Dakota County Chamber
---- W. Suburban Chamber Group
---- Bloomington Hospitality Group
---- Carlson Companies
---- Martin Sabo
---- MASAC
ss i--t
I
MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
Presentation to
MAC PRE Committee
Preliminary Air'Feld and Terminal
Development Alternatives
April 3, 1990
HOVF'ARD Iv'EEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
TRA, INC
ss i -~
MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
Overview
• Preliminary airfield requirements presented in January showcd that one additional
runw~av would be desirable to meet 2020 needs.
• A full range of alternative runwa}~ locations was examined, as depicted in Figure 1-
1attached.
l~ev operational factors used in identifying best airfield options included:
- operational.: independence with existing parallel runways for increased VFR
capacit}~. '
dedicated arrival and departure runw~avs.
- additional IFR capacity.
Overflight patterns and potential disruption to residential areas were considered.
• Preliminary runway options screened to four runway concepts:
A, B, C, and D.
~ ,,s
1 ~., J_,.. ~ , ,
SS ~ -~l
MSP LonY•TermComprehensive Plan
Runway Concept A
• 7500-foot runway parallel to and 1000 feet north of Runway 11L-29R.
• Predominant landing runway.
• Substantial VFR capacity benefits by providing landings on new runway and takeoffs
on Runway 11L-29R. Small but significant IFR capacity benefits.
• Would require relocation of USAF and ANG facilities. Some residential acquisition
in RPZ.
• Additional overflights NW and SE of airport.
i
SS I-I~
MSP i.ong-Term Comprehensi~•e Plan
Runway Concept B(B1/B-2)
• Parallel run~•av 1000 feet south of Runway I1R-29I., predominantly for landing;
(similar in use to Concept A). `
• Concept B-1 is 7200 feet long (7000 feet for landing).
• Concept B-2 pro~~des a length of 8200 feet (8000 feet for landing) by tunneling
Cedar Avenue under runway safety area.
• Substantial ~'FR ;capacity gains; small but significant IFR gains similar to Concept
A.
• Stagger in run~~av due to clearance requirements over cemetery results in some
minor .operational limitations.
• Relocation of Van Dusen required.
• Residential acquisition required to Crosstown Highway (including New Ford 'To~~n)
in RPZ.
• Additional overflights NW and SE of airport.
5 J' ~ ~''
WISP Long-Term Comprehensi~•e Plan
Runway Concept C
• 8000-foot north-south runway 1300 feet east of Cedar Avenue.
• Rur~°- °-.~:~~~ald be used predominantly for departures to the south and arrivals from
the sc - ~~~.~ependent of operations on the parallel runways.
• Substantial VFR capacity gains, significant IFR capacity gains. Runway could be
used almost 100 percent of the time in conjunction with parallel runways.
• Acquisition required in Runway Protection Zone includes Met Center, two hotels,
MTC facility and some air freight forwarders.
• Residential acquisition east of Cedar Avenue (New Ford Town).
• Large percentage of ..additional overflights directed east of Cedar Avenue.
Compatibility ~~th Mega Mall development a concern.
55 I - ~ 2
MSP LonE-Term Comprehensive Plan
Runway Concept D
• Concept is onl}~ applicable in conjunction with Terminal Conccpt D (satellite Green
concourse).
• Two new 8000-foot parallel runways 1000 feet and 2000 feet north of existing
Runwa~~ 11L-29R.
• Runway 11L-29R would be closed to make room for satellite Green concourse.
• Same capacin• benefits as Concept A.
• )\9ore extensive relocation of facilities required, including all of USAF and A.'~G
facilities.
• Tunneling or rerouting of Crosstown Highway required, along with residential
acquisition north of highway.
• Additional overflights NW and SE of airport.
55 ~ -I 3
MSP Long-Term ~mnrehencive Plan
Next Steps in Concept Evaluation
• Discussion of airfield/terminal concepts with MAC, airlines, technical experts.
• Screening to 2 or 3 best runway and terminal concepts.
• Detailed evaluation of concepts, including computer simulation of runway. options,
noise analysis, evaluation of operational benefits, and cost estimates.
• Presentation of evaluation results to MAC, public.
~5 ~_~y-
1 ~ ~~
-_ I~~~^ rte= 2 ~r • }
R ,~ _ ~, 7 1
a~J ,~ ,
~ ~ ._.'
t ~.~1'y, /~ JJJ y111~.~1" yy I,I,IL`_ ,, ',_ `%
Vt , ~ .,~ .
~~ ~;~ .,,
~~~ _ :.
I~ ~ ~ ~ _/J
,_ _
_. ~~ \
--. ::r ..
~~
i
ti _ - r,
1 .Y ~ ,I •I
g ~ - .
„ . - ;;~
3
J ', ~ ~.I
. ~ t ,; ~_ ~
."~~ T. ~ ,
'~;
+~~ ~,,
_ „' ,~ ~
..;~.
D
_~-- ~.
.' ,`~
' ~~ ~
I
f ~~~ --
9
_ ;~ . ~. -
-.^~t x;11- _ _
~~ i
~ 1~ I„~ .
- J. .
~. ; ~ ~ ~
10 ~ 11 12
~ ~ ~ ~ _~
i ' ~' c y
Long-Term Comprehensive .Plan .Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
Airfield Alternatives Considered ~-1
North Figure
7 8
-. ~I~
r
~ r4
i ~
~ ~
~~
~~~~~~
~
'y
0 y ..~
•~~N~
~~ / ,
~ ..
~ ~
~. 55 1-IS
RA InC. Memorandum
ArehNecture
Englneering
PlanMng
Interiors
Dare 3/30/90
Proecr MSP 2020 Long Term Comprehensive Plan Ao~ea No 10010.09
Subject p $ E Committee Update ey MAP
Project Overview
o Projected growth from 67 gates to 98 in year 2020.
- 55 gates for NWA
- 6 International arrival gates
- 2~ regional aircraft parking positions
o Consolidation of domestic, international and regional operations.
o Facility requirements for consolidated operations approximately 2.9 million square feet
of passenger processing. facilities.
o Total terminal area and parking for public, auto rental, terminal employees -- 26,710
spaces.
o NWA Employee parking -- 17,230 spaces.
Terminal Area Concept A • Overview
0 55 NWA, 6 International Arrivals, 21 Regional carrier positions at expanded Lindbergh
Terminal.
o New multi-level unit terminal for NWA passenger processing, with parking, concourse
connectors and multi-level drives.
o Alterations to Lindtr 'germinal to accommodate relocated Federal Inspection
Services (FIS3. Ie ;~<t:d level sterile connectors from Red and Blue Concourse
International Arrival-gates.
o Midfield satellite with 25 gates, below-grade baggage and people-mover connection to
passenger processing in Lindbergh Terminal.
o Relocation of midfield buildings including tower.
o Relocation of auto rental, storage facilities, and post office.
o Relocation of hangars and employee parking at Building B.
3e C-~x,cy street ,~
suite ,002
90iaon. AAA
a2,,,•z37,
Fex (617j 462.7178
55 I-I~.
Terminal Area Concept B -Overview
o New multi-level Central Passenger Processing Terminal Unit for all passengers at west
end of terminal area, with associated roads, drives, and parking. Access from
Crosstown and Cedar Avenue.
o Below-grade baggage and people mover system to Lindbergh Terminal Concourses.
Additions and alternations to accommodate all forecasted domestic, international and
regional gates.
o Existing structured auto ramps and roads deactivated, new plane parking apron and
taxilanes developed to service double-loaded Green and Gold Concourses.
o New Federal Inspection Services (FIS) in portion of remodeled Lindbergh Terminal.
New sterile, third level connectors from Red and Blue Concourse International Arrival
gates.
o Relocation of hangars and employee parking at Building B, develop new cross taxiway.
o Relocation of midfield buildings including tower.
o Relocation of auto rental, storage facilities, and post office.
Terminal Area Concept C -Overview
o Relocation of Building B (NWA Main Base) and associated hangars and parking.
- 0 55 NWA, 6 .International Arrivals, 21 Regional carrier positions at expanded Lindbergh
Terminal.
o New multi-level unit terminal for other air carrier passenger processing with parking,
concourse connectors, and multi-level drives.
o .NWA passenger processing in existing Lindbergh Terminal.
o Alternations to Lindbergh Terminal to accommodate relocated Federal inspection
Services (F!S). New sterile, third level connectors from Red and Blue Concourse
Intemational Arrival gates.
o New cross taxiway between 11 L and 29R.
o Relocation of auto rental, storage facilities and post office.
o Reconfiguration of entry and exit roads.
Terminal Area Concept D -Overview
o Relocation of Runway 29R
o New 40+ Gate midfield Satellite Concourse, parallel to Green Concourse. Dual T57
taxiway between concourses.
~ ~-i'
o New multi-level unit terminal for NWA passenger processing with parking and drives.
Below-grade baggage and pedestrian connectors to midfield satellite.
o New Federal Inspection Services (FIS), in addition to Lindbergh Terminal. New sterile,
third level connector from Red and Blue Concourse International Arrival gates.
o Realigned gates at Red and Blue Concourses for improved taxiing.
o Relocation of auto rental, storage facilities, and post office.
o Relocation of employee parking, and hangars at Building B.
Terminal Area Concept E -Overview
o New 55+ gate midfield satellite concourse with International Arrivals, some regional,
and new Federal Inspection Services (FIS) at west terminal area.
o Below-grade baggage and people mover system to existing Lindbergh Terminal.
o Realigned gates at Red and Blue Concourses for improved taxiing.
o Lindbergh Terminal with 25+ jet carrier positions and regional airlines.
o Relocation of midfield buildings including tower.
o Relocation of auto rental, storage facilities and post office.
o New multi-level unit terminal for other air carrier passengers processing with parking,
concourse connectors and multi-level drives.
o Relocation of hangars and employee parking at Building B.
o New cross taxiway between 11-Land 29R.
~ ~-i~
Z
s
a
w
z
w
= W
W ~
Q a
a ~
g z
O v
U Q
W
Q Q
W ..i
H Q
C3 ?
Z ~
O W
J ~
l
~1
-..~ ; ~ y)
..,1
C\ • ~1~ ~ •
C.b~
~Q ~
C
C
SS ~-Iq
~ V
I~
~o
C
~~
~~
~a ` O o
z
5
a
w
N
z
W
S
W
a ~
'
~ ~
o
o
U ~
0 0C a
~
N 2
aZ ~
`~' ~ o
V
~ ~
~C
ss ~-~o
J
t
~/---~1-'~ ~
~ .~. ~,I ~
~~ ,,~ "@' X x -E~
~ "" dpi xk -{.
X ~ , I I ~Y k {-{
t• 0~ yti t
~ «,tol';~ -~
x p ..~
x
'} t~
D ~ ''~ :~
0
~p~ ~
0
0
~ Z
g
a
li >
li y
z
W
W
a
U
~ o~
W
N ~
a~
Nz
,~ O
~i~^
I~I
~ Vc
C
C
0o D
,~ o
. ~ p -D ~ ~
0 ~ '
0 "~
p alr
D
p O
;~ ~ s
apt
p
i °
p
~ ~
jf~ OD
~j 0
~'~
;C~', ~~
~~~
•, ,
,;.
m
4
W
U
2
O
U
Q
J
Q
2
W
f
ss ~-a~
Q O O X~'I'~~~
~~o 0
n ~=
V
H
a
W
U
2
O
U
Q
J
Q
2
Q
W
H
~s ~ _aa.
~ Ova --
O
~~ 00
s
a
W
Z
W
W
Q
a
0
U
W
2
O
J
O
W
0
a
J
Q
_2
W
H
55 I - ~3
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MSP PART 150 PROGRAM -FAA RESPONSE
April 16, 1990
The FAA has approved parts of the MSP Part 150 Plan officially making projects
contained within the plan (home insulation, land acquisition, purchase
guarantee) eligible for federal funding. Other elements of the program have
been disapproved by FAA, or have been disapproved pending receipt of further
information.
The FAA action is approval of the concepts contained in the Part 150 study.
MAC must now develop a specific implementation program for the Part 150
plan in ..conjunction with each specific city contained in the 1992 LDN Noise
Contour Map (Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Mendota Heights and
Eagan). Once developed, the Part 150 implementation program will define
procedures (what, when, where, how) and phasing for each city participating
in the Part 150 program. The implementation program development is targeted
for completion by the end of this year.
Initial application to the FAA for funding is anticipated for late 1990 or early
1991,. making it possible for the initial phase of the program to begin by
Summer 1991. The overall MSP Part 150 program will be a phased-in program
during the next 20 year period.
Although the MAC is eligible for federal funding, it is not necessarily
guaranteed. The MAC must apply for funding to the FAA for federal funding
on a case-by-case basis.
ss ~-~~
•ti .. .
ecerat Aviation ~ =~ ~ v~- ;•'
,~dministratiOrt w~ 5~~.>;,
nn
"r. Jeff Hamiel r.~ { - ~
::ecutive Director
ww'1neaDOl1S'St. Paul
"._:-.:,eaDCl=~, "innesota 55450
:'e sr "r. Hamiel.
T};e Federal Aviation Administration tFAA) has evaluated the MinneaDCl~s-mot.
=3'1. ... ~2rnat1Cn3l Airport ti`tO~Se trOtilDatlbl~~ty :"~~: 3s^ ~~(rP -' 0::0 -ea _~O
~~_... _*:'S ~,:~Tltted ~O th15 O~S..~e under the JrOV1S~On5 G~ =?C~_v:, Wit'- 3 ~~
.::e Av~at~on Safety. and Noise Abatement Act of i579. The recommended 'iC?
proposed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission is identified by action
element number in a summary table, Table VI-1, on the pages following page
IV-1 of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport NCP. The NCP was
supplemented and revised by letters from the airport operator dated tune 16,
'_?89 and March 7, 1990.. A total. of twenty-three measures are included in
.he Metropolitan Airports Commission's recommended program. Fourteen are
listed as ~toise Abatement Measures, and nine are listed as Land Use
"anacement Measures. I am pleased to inform you that out of the ?3
-ease: es submitted, the Assistant Administrator for Airports aporcved *_•+e:.ve
=asures, disapproved four measures pending submission of add~t,onal
:f•~rmation, gave partial approval/partial disapproval to three measures,
and ~~~approved four measures outright. The specific action for each hC?
measure, with a full explanation, is set forth in the enclosed Record of
Approval. The effective date of this approval is April 2, 1990.
Each airport NCP developed in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation
tFAR) Part 150 is a local program. not a Federal program. The FAA does not
substitute its judgment for that. of the airport proprietor with respect to
which measures. should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or
disapproval of FAR Part 150 program recommendations is measured accordinc to
`_he standards expressed in Part 150 and the Aviation Safety and yoise
Abatement Act of 1979, and is limited to the followinq determination:
'"he `MCP was developed in accordance ++ith the previsions and
procedures of FAR Part 150;
SS I - ~5
: -_-~_, "'e2=~. c°_ av'..__ ~Ct =:6o:c 3.', ~L=:E' _.. ter". _:. -..:erb:o_c _.
_-= ei =om-er=e, uri liS; Y •7iSC: ~ -..ate aGal.'i: ~ Y[eS v; =_ac-=
_- aEr~naU:1Ca~ uSPS, vlClate the :erTS Of a1r~Grt Cr3nt
acreements, or lr,trude Into ar eas preempted *_.'.e ~edera:
~cvernmert.
. : Jy^ram measures re:a:1:1Q tv the llSe of I~1`,t ^GCed'..`2S =ar, t'e
--,c_eTen:e^_ v__.._.. _..= cer_~.. _..Verec cv ~':_ =crate •~:_...,,,_
=e. -cs' _. sa,-~ ac =: se_ a~-=_._r.c _aa ?f._=_e:,: ___ a:..
-,anaceTer.: _ :ne navi~ab~e air_pace a..^,d air t, af~i~ _~r,*_:: _
s~~ste~s, ~r ac•:er.e_;a affec` _nc at;,e: Movers an„ : esccn=;__-. -_=c
~_ . ;e Ac~~inis': at.: res~r,~ec by lav.
_,:2C;-.C -1T~1Lat1~Ti5 v.th respect t0 FAA'S approval Of ari 31rpGr". :iC= 3: _
=2_inea;ed _„ !AtY Tart :~~, ~eCtlOn :.~.,0..~.,. Approval 15 GOt B deterT_::atl- .
--.._?:..-. _ _r.e 3CC-~;oC~l-_Y ~2 _and JSeS '~nCer redera-. S~at~, -. _-_.:-
• -- -_ - --• _ _-: o_ 3= ._C;. ~. 3.. _ ;ate _C _ -_'12a _ SNCC-..~ ..~ __
=c-~patiLli~ _! -,easures .ray be required, and ar. FAA decisio: on tae ra~uE=:
may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. ApFrcval
does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist ir. the
implementation of the. program nor a determination that all measures covered
~y the prograT are eligl-ble for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. where
"'ece: a~ fu ,:ir,g "is sought, requests for project grants must be sub^:lttec :o
_-e -Ar+ `::..:,ears-_s Airport District Office _n hinneape-ls Mir.ne_s _a.
-.._ -;,,; +1_.. ub__s., c r.c:_ce In the =edera- ^ecis`_er ar...c., :ci. = - = a_ --
:. -_ ..~_=2 =~'~Da:_7__-tY 7C: am. n 3i _:, c:: ..ra=_ J1 _.,~C ".: :y=c _S•
_..__vocC. ~_'.: 3rE .,~ equi:eC .. :. ui:e i=C.ai c~_-c~a. "lC_-__. b__.._.:~:'. _..
3 r V .7 l.. _ - v ~ i ~ ...
;t is recognized that the Metropolitan Airports Commission i"fAC; coatiaues
to study tvo possible measures: i~ a program vhereby "lA.C vouid subsidize
airlrne replacement of Stage 2 by Stage 3 aircraft and 2> the construction
of a para11e1.Runvay 4-22. Work on both measures is undervay. `de also
'mderstand that the "letropolitan Airports Commission has examined t;,e
i,;,plementation of a nev Runvay Utilization System, which recentl;~ .:nderver.;
si:; ronth test, and has subsequently approved this measure and p:ar.s ;~
seep rAA's :mp;ementatlon of lt. None of these three Te3SUre5 ver=
cposed for 1nClUSlOn i^. tii15 Tart :50 NOlse CCmpatlbil:tY =y ograr a:7C ..'.:.b
3; ~ nGt ap,:,roveo, 'herefore, before 1~'piementatio.^. Of a;,, __ :..?Se .... -_
-~eas.:res. ':A~ 'ai_l :,eed is : evlse *_ ;e:r !MCP ;o i:.cl;~ce _ne :ev ^ea_..: es a:._
=e:er'nine hel: 1Tpac; on ±he other '^easures currer:tly yncluded lr. _r.is
55 i -ZS-
_ _ _.,
_ _ _
+c :'2''.+c'.r.2C ~.: c '3~..o.c ~t~aai,r _~ ~.. ..8. =~1:.-= ~ fit',,: _.:3. '/tr: c ...~..;u:. ..r@C
"'_':7i...~ ~~._'~i~_ai vi 3u:~tiJn3~ ~:SCrT,a~_on.
,;,ar.; vo:: Zor your continued interest in noise compatibility planning.
~incereiv,
~~
+~. nober~ 9liiinasiey
I'_ Assistant Manager, Airports Division
Great Lakes Region
~.nclosures
55 I - ~1
uS?A,:°'".SN; CF TRA'iSPCRT,~"1GN
Federal Aviation Adm~nistrat~on
Approval of Norse Ccmpat,bil~*_~~ ?rogram
M~nneapci~s-~t. ?3U.'. lnterna__~nal Airpor ,
M~.^.neaeol~s, `!~nnesota
Ace..^.cv: =edera:. Aviat_on Adm,a_straucn. OCT.
ACTION: Notice.
SUriMARY: The Federal-Aviation Administration (FAA). announces its
findings on"'the noise compatibility program submitted by the
;7etropol~tan Airports Commission under the provisions of "'itie o*'
the Aviation Sa_'ety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Public Lav S6-
193> and 14 CFR Part 150. These findings are made in recognition of
the description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate
Report No. 96-52 (1980>. On October 4, 1989, the FAA determined that
the noise exposure maps submitted by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission under Part 150 vere in compliance vlth applicable
requirements. On April 2, 1990, the Assistant Administrator for
Airports approved the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport noise
compatibility program, as supplemented and revised by letters from the
airport operator dated June lE, 1989 and March 7, 1990. A total of
ss ~- ~~
`..•~1e*1~•J-*:1r?° measures are 11Cllld='~ :~ tale iletropol~tan Air pOr`S
~omm~ss_on's recommended program. Fourteen are L•sted as Horse
Abatement Measures, and nine are listed as Land Use Management
Measures. The FAA has approved t+elve measures, disapproved four
measures pending submission of additional information, gave partial
approval/partial disapproval to three measures, and disapproved four
measures. outright.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective. data of the FAA's approval of the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport noise compatibility program
is April 2, 1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Prescott C. Snyder, Federal Aviation
Administration, Great Lakes Region, Airports Division, AGL-611.1, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, (312) 694-7538.
Documents .reflecting this FAA action may be revieved at this same
location.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has
given its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, effective April 2, 1990.
Under section 104ta) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of
1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act"), an airport operator vho
has previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a
noise compatibility program vhich sets forth the measures taken or
proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing
2
ss i -~
.._..~.. :a:_~_e _~:._ .:ses ar.c ~: event_~n o. add_:_~na. .._r.c~ ~a:_.,_e _ar...
..ses ~+_..._.. t:.e a: _a _cvered o•~ _::e nose expcsure map_. "`:e .4c.
re~u~res such programs to be developed in consultation with interested
ar.d a~`ected parties including local communities, government agenc.es.
airport users, and FAA personnel.
Fac~ a~-acr: nc,se ~ompat~bility program developed in accordance v. _..
Fecerai Av:atlor. Regulations cFAR) Part 150 is a local prccra.:~, nc: a
Federal pros^r am. -,he'FAA dces not subst_tute its judgment _c. coat c'
the airport proprietor with respect to which measures saculd be
:=_c^mer.dec fc. act_cn. Tye ".4,~ s appravai or d_sapp'_;a. .._ "aR Pa-_
.=~, program reco-mendat~cr.s _s measurec acccrc.ag tc .::e standares
expressed in Part 150 and the Aet, and is limited to the following
determinations:
a. The noise campat_bllity program vas developed in accordance vet::
t`~e provisions and procedures of FAR Part 1`0;
b. Program measures are reasonably consistent rith achieving the
goals of reducing existing noncompatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional noncampatible land uses;
c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or
foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or c'_asses of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
in :rude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
'3
55 I --3~
,.. ?---: am ^~easu: es relat;r.g to the use of =light procedures can 5e
i~nplemented,vythin the period covered by-the program without derogating
safety, adversely. affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
Specific l.mitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport noise
compatibi~ity program are delineated in FAR Part 150, section 15x.5.
Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land
USES under Federal, state, Or 1oC31 1av. Approval dOES nOt by ltsel~
constitute an FAA implementing actor.. A request for Federal action or
approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be
required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures
covered by the program are e'_igible for grant-in-aid funding from the
FAA. Where .federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must
be submitted to the FAA Minneapolis Airports District Office in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission submitted to the-FAA on October 6,
1987, noise exposure maps, descriptions and other documentation which
were subsequently revised February 24, 1988 (minor corrections), May
19, 1989 (revised HEM format), June 16, 1989 (revised NCP format) and
4
Ss ! -31
C -emcee C`, .Sc~ c- -e.z NE'',4C? cer._--catcor.s,. T:~~_
_.,~_^.e-._at_..~. +as ~...:cec ,. ,.. _^c _:;e ~,-pcr. He,_e C~mpat_____-;,•
Piann~ng (Part 1S0> Study at iiinneaaol~s-St. Paul International A:r~crt
from 4ovember 1S84 t!~rough June 1989. The Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport noise exposure maps vere determined by FAA to be
in compliance vith applicable requirements on October 4, 1985. Notice
C: t .3 ~Eter'11~na;.-cn Mas pu5l-sned In t:':e F2der31 Reg:st=r .... ~c.ober
Tye ii~nneapoi~s-St. Paul Internat_onal Airport study ccr.tains a
;,: cpcse= noise comca*_:b:l__;~ =cram comprised o_` actions ,es:._ned c_.
prased ~mplame^=at_on by a~_rcr' management and ad;acen_ ;ur.sd_c.~ons
from t'~e date of study completion ±o the year 2004. it vas requested
that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a noise
compatibility prooram as described in section 104cb~ of the Act. The
FAA began its raviev of the prooram on October 4, 1589 and vas required
by a prov•:sion of the Act to approve or disapprove the program v::hcn
180 days (other than the use of nev flight procedures for ne~se
control). .Failure to approve or disapprove such program vithin the
180-day period vould have been deemed to be an approval of such
program.
The submitted program, as supplemented and revised by letters from the
airport operator dated June 16, 1989 and March ^, 1990 contained
twenty-three proposed measures for noise mitigation on and of _` t:~e
airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the
5
~~ ' ~~~
o:::cedura~. and substar.t~.•~e r equiremer.~a ~_ the Act. and ~ AR °srt 1~~
have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was approved by
the Assistant Administrator for Airports effective April 2, 1990.
Fourteen of the twenty-three measures submitted were listed as "Koise
Abatement leasures". Three of these noise abatement measures were
designed to reduce the number of Stage 3 aircraft. The measures
included a noise budget, which ias approved as a voluntary measure, but
disapproved as a mandatory measure; and measures exempting Stace S
aircraft from noise abatement flight tracks and neootiating a user fee
to be levied on the landing of Staoe 2 aircraft. The latter two
measures were disapproved pend-ing the submission of additional/updated
information. Three other noise abatement measures were designed to
increase use of the Preferential Runway System. One o~ these. measures
vas the relocation of Runway 4/22, which xas approved in concept.
The other two measures to increase use of the Preferential Runway
System included providing incentives for general aviation uses to
relocate to other airports, which ras disapproved pending submission of
additional information, and assigning propeller aircraft to
underutilized runways when the PRS is in use, which vas disapproved.
Tvo more measures of the fourteen noise abatement measures dealt with
restricting night operations. These measures were approved as
voluntary measures but as mandatory measures were disapproved pending
the submission of additional information. Finally, six of the noise
abatement measures dealt with flight tracks and other miscellaneous
measures. The three flight track measures related to changes to ardor
6
SS I.33
_~s-= ~: ~erar`_..:= rr_ca~..:a_ -_.- :....•ra~ . ~=. '_'' and ._3. A-- ~-
.r.e~e Te3SHr°5 Je:'° .._ac~ .. 'Jc~~. ','VC ..- _::2 ~.,:e'=' ~:..__ ':1~~_2__:...=--6
measures included enforcement of n~ghtt~me run-up policy, and improv:;g
the monitoring and enforcement o: all noise abatement measures. '"hey
both vere approved. However, a third measure calling far installat:gin
of a microwave landing system on Runway 11L vas disapproved.
The other nine c the twenty-three measures submitted are _~sted as
"'"Land Use Management "teasu-es", a:: of vh,ch vere apprcv2C. C= t:,ese
nine measures, five vere preventative measures including a public
~rfor-~a __on orcc: am, c^ances _.. .-.e con_r.g- b~,.__d~ag ..odes and a-^er.c_. ,
land use plans. 't'he ct:^.er four :ar, use rar.agement measures are
corrective measures such as acquir.ng/guaranteeing purchase of noise
impacted homes and soundproofing of homes, schools and other public
buildings.
",'hese determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Appreva:
endorsed by the Assistant Administrator for Airports on April 2, 1990.
The Record of Approval, as yell as other evaluation materials and
documents which comprised the submittal to FAA are available for
review at the following locations:
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, Svc., Room 617
Washington,. D. C. 20591
7
~ I -3~
Federal Aviation Administration
Great Lakes Region
2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 261
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
Federal Aviation Administration
Minneapolis Airports District Office
6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102
riinneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Metropolitan Airports Commission
West Terminal Area
riinneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
6040 28th Avenue South
riinneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Cuestions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER IHFORriATIOH CONTACT.
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, April il, 1990.
`'n . C~ G~titi~r~
Henry A. Lamberts
Acting ?tanager, Airports Division
Great Lakes Region
8
SS ~ -3~
Me~norar~dur~
uS o~~+
or T-vnsporxmon
F~d«d Aviation
Administration
suc,e~t ACT ON: FAR Part 150 Noise
Program, Minneapolis-St. Pa
Airport, Minnesota
_~~ Director, Office of Airport
and Programming, APP-1
'~ Assistant Administrator for
Compatibility c"° 0 ~ aP? 1990
ul International
Repy 10
Planning ~rr~ or
Airports, ARP-1
Attached for your action is the Noise Compatibility Program
(NCP) for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (?~!S=;
.::,der Part 15C. The Great Lakes Region, in con~unctio^ -~~_'-:
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) headquarters, ha=
evaluated the program. and recommends action as set forth in the
attached Record of Approval.
On October'4, 19.89, the FAA determined that the noise exposure
maps for MSP were in compliance with applicable requirements of
'`FAR"Part 150. The last date for FAA action on the program per
section 104(b)`of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act
~f 1979 is April 2, 1990. If the program is not acted ::ion ~:•
the FAA by that date, it becomes automatically approvE~ Ex~ep~
fcr flight procedures.
A total of twenty-three measures are included in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission's
recommended program. Fourteen are listed as Noise Abatement
Measures, and nine are listed as Land Use Management Measures.
The FAA is recommending approval of twelve of the measures,
total disapproval of four of the measures, partial
approval/partial disapproval of three of the measures, and
disapproval pending submission of additional information on the
four remaining measures. Each of the measures are described in
the attached Record of Approval with the necessary
justification of FAA's action.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission has indicated that an
estimated 18,544 persons are currently impacted by noise withi^
the 65 Ldn noise contour. After the noise abatement measures
have .been put into action and the noise contours reduced in
size, the 5-year projection is that 13,661 persons will be
within the 65 Ldn contour, a reduction of 4,883
ss s-~
persons. To mitigate impact on those persons still within the
65 Ldn contour, various 1-and use measures such as acoustical
treatment of dwellings and noise sensitive public buildings,
and voluntary fee and easement acquisition, will be enacted.
The Assistant Administrator for Policy and. International
Aviation and the Chief Counsel have concurred with the
March 27, 1990, recommendations of the Airports Division, Great
Lakes Regional 'Office, as described in the Record of Approval.
If you agree with the recommended actions, you should indicate
your approval by your signature in the appropriate space on the
1 st page of t e AGL-600 letter. Z recommend your approval.
CMS
Paul L. Galis
Attachment
SS I-3
~~ Men~or~nd~r~
~•'~c^s~c~~o~-
Federol Av-atio~
Administration
ACTION: Approval of Noise Cowpatibility
s~~iec• Program for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Dare MAR ? ~ 1990
Airport, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Aec~~ •c
=•o^~ .Assistant Manager, Airports Division, ~••~ c' Snyder:X753B
Great Lakes Region, AGL-601
'c Assistant Adwinistrator for Airports
.ARP-1
ATTN: APP-600
On October 4, 1989 the FAA deterwined that the Noise Exposure flaps cNE2f's)
for linneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
are in co~+pliance rith applicable requirewents of Section 103 tc) of the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatewent Act of 1979 t•The Act•). Coincident
rith that detersination, re began the forwal 180-day revier period for
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport's proposed Noise Cowpatibility
Prograw tNCP) under Section 10~ta) of the Act. According to the Act, the
MCP roust be approved. or disapproved Dy -FAA rithin 180 days or it shall be
'`deemed approved.`-The Tast date for such approval or disapproval is April 2,
1990.
The proposed NCP has been reviered end evaluated by the Minneapolis Airports
District Office; Flight Standards, Airray Facilities, Air Traffic, and
Airports Divisions; the Regional Planning Specialist; and Assistant Chief
Counsel. Their cowwents rere consolidated rith those of APP-600 and AEE-100
and sent to the airport sponsor. The sponsor addressed these cowwents, and
produced errata sheets for Part I and Part II of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport Part 150 Study subsittal. The sponsor's response
also contained certification of public participation in the Part 150 process
and°docuwentation of'the sponsor's certification for both the ITEM and NCP.
Copies of all'of these rere subsitted earlier to APP-600 to be consolidated
rith previous subwittals of the NEM and MCP.
Me have concluded that the ACP is consistent rith the intent of the Act and
that it weets the standards •et forth in FAR Part 150 for such prograws.
The standard Part 150 noise cowpatibility prograw checklist ras reviered to
ensure that all required itews rere included in the proposed prograw. That.
checklist is attached.
55 1-3~
2
As part of the forwal 180-day review, each proposed .action in the NCP has
undergone further revie~ and evaluation on the basis of effectiveness and
potential conflict •ith Federal policy and prerogatives. These include. safe
and efficient use of the nation's airspace, undue burden on interstate
coswerce, un)ust discrisin:tion, and interference •ith a Federal regulatory
cospliance schedule ti. e., FAR Part 91, Subpart E).
Our recoawendstion on each of the proposed actions is described in the
attached Record of Approval. Each aeasure is described 1n detail in the
!linneapolis-St. Paul International Airport NCP.
-~ .~
"~ Y ~
~ -~ c
.J
M. R~ert Billingsley, Asai tent X: ager
Airp is Division
FAA Great Lakes Region
Attachments:
Record of Approval
NCP and NEH Checklist, Revised
SS 1-3~
RECORD OF APPROVAL
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOISE COIiPATIBILITY PROGRAM
Concur ~ .3 ' , q0
~sistant Adainistrator for tdate)
Non concur Policy and International Aviation,
API-1
Concur ~/ ~ ~~~~-~-o"~ ~ ~1CJ
Counsel, AGC-1 d~~
Non concur ~ v
/ (`~~
Approve ~ ~~ ~---.1 ~ lJ
Assistant Adsin for (date)
Disapprove Airports, ARP-1
55 I-~-
RECORD OF APPROVAL
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM
The Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) for Minneapolis-St. Pau:
International Airport, Minneapolis, Minnesota, describes the
current and future non-compatible land uses based upon the
parameters as established in FAR Part 150, Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning. The Metropolitan Airports Commission.
recommended twenty-three (23) measures in their NCP to remedy
existing noise problems and prevent future non-compatible land
uses. These measures are grouped-into two categories: Noise
Abatement Measures (14 measures) and Land L'se Management Measures
(9 measures).
Each measure is identified below
sur,..-~ary of the airpor. operator's
~it~:drawal; and a cross reference
other background documents, .where
su:*:nary table of these measures,
page ZV-l.
by plan category, and includes a
reccra:,endations, includ_ng any.
to page numbers in the NCP, a_
each measure can be Zoun~. A
Table 2~I-1, is found following
The Metropolitan Airports Coaw~ission (MAC) continues to study two
possible measures: l) a program whereby .~ZAC would subsidize
airline replacement of Stage 2 by Stage 3 aircraft and 2) the
construction of a parallel Runway 4-22. Work on both measures is
underway. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has also exarncd
the implementation of a new Runway Utilization System, which
recently underwent a six month test. MAC subseque.^.~ly apprcvc~
this measure and plans to seek FAA's i~:~plementatior. o` it. No^.a
cf these three measures are currently proposed for inclusion i_^.
this Part 250 Noise Compatibility Program. However, before
implementation of any of the three measures, MAC will need to
revise their NCP to include the new measures and to Ce=ermine
their impact on the other measures currently included in this
NCP. Also, MAC will need to assess their impact on thQ 1992 NF.M
accepted earlier by FAA, and possibly need to revise the NEM's.
~JOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
The narrative description for each Noise Abatement~Measure below
references the Noise Compatibility Prcgram (NCP) document, but
includes as well references to a companion background document
called the "FAR Part iS0 Noise Compatibility Program-Recom:^:ended
Noise Abatement Program" (NA Program), dated July, 1986. The NA
Program was prepared under the Part 15o Study by the airport
sponsor's consultant I3A1T8 for review by the Metropelita.*~ Aircra_;.
Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). This latter group was
establict~ed to Coate up w-th noise abatement recommendations for
the NCP !or Minneapolis-St. Paul Znternational Airport (MSp}.
The ~5~, Progra~: docun+er~t 3ricorporated appropriate parts of a
G~~ ~_~~
~.
ss - -~f ~
^••*-rent a{fort by the Governor's Task Fcrce cr. ,'-.ir`c~ : '~'.,_s~.
V v ~ ~ 4 _ r
A°ter their review, the MASAC recca.~erded measures to be i^,c_.:~ew
i:. the airport sponsor's (Metropolitan Airports Cosmissicn~ Nc~
submittal. The noise abatement measures accepted for adcctic-: by
the Metropolitan Airports Commission's and for inclusicr. ir. i:s
yCP submittal follows.
Measures To Reduce Thg Nursbgr 0 Stacie 2 Aircraft
NA-l. 7-dopt a phased-in noise budget orainanc• for Minneapo~is-
St. Paul International airport (xcp page ZIZ-2, ExhiLit 3
on page III-3, pages IIZ-4, III-34, TabiQ Zv-1 following
paq• Iv-i aad appendices D and E. xEM 7-ppendiees c an?'
', E. Also,'xA program pages 39 and 39a-and 1-ppeadices c,
D, E, and E. Finally, page 3 0! June 16, 1989 lotto:),
The Metropolitan Airports Com~ission adorted a ^oise
budget ordinance or. April 27, 1987, a copy o° wh:c_^. .s
fcund in NCP Appendix E. The noise budge consists c` z
prep csed inita' cei lin5 e~..~al to the nc:se er.ercy -
Ave.age Daily Noise Energy (ACNE) that wts prcd::ce= ~,
airline aircra.t at MSP during the ca1Q.^.dar yea: :5~~, a
base year in terms of cor.~urity-acceptable levels c=
aircraft noise emissions. Based or. analysis cf rece-_
sensitivity surveys of metropolitan area reside:as a^~ yr
the pattern`cf increasing hashers of reccrded ci.izer.
coaplaints about aircraft noise over a nur.~e_ of vea_=,
the ordinance reflects the conclusion t_:at a red::c_ic-: e.
total aizlire aircraft noise to 1984 levels wo,~lc ~.~•:~e
meaningful relief tc r.any area reside:as.
The noise ceiling, however, does not de~ir.e a gec^ra~`::~
area, as does the use of Ldr. metric which takes i^t~
account flight tracks. This moans it cannot be dire`t:y
compared to a 1984 Noise Exposure Map which used si-~?zr
fleet mix data. Also, the ADNE in the ordinance dces-'t
include non-airline aircraft noise, while Ldn reflects
all operations. Finally, ADNE provides no reliable
relationships between projected noise exposure and the
reactions of people. Therefore, ADNE metric di~fe_s iron.
the Ldn metric in at least three points, it doesn't
include all aircraft noise, it is neutral as to rsr.~:ay
use, and it doesn't reflect people's reactions tc nc_se.
The noise budget was to be implemented in phases.
Initially (June 1987), the Airports Co;nmissior. capped
total airport noise a 124.9 EPNdb, a level 11 perce-a
below the noise energy produced in August 1986. TrE cap
was then phased down annually, to 124.8 in 1988 and 124.6
in 1989. Future phasing incindes 124.5 in 1990, 124.E ir.
1991, and 124.2 in 1992. This final cap, representir,c
1984 noise 1QVels, is a reduction of 24 percent in rose
2
energy fron August 1986, and is the level pr~jecte~ :or
1992 operations, assuming that schedules for introduc~ior.
of quiet aircraft currently on order by the airlines at
MSP are met.
Enactment of the Noise Budget Ordinance has been
temporarily deferred to permit negotiations with affQCted
air carriers for a eomparablQ program of noise abate^~er.r
initiatives. The Noise Budget ordinance ADNE reducticn
goals. are consistent with forecast activity at MSP. The
1992 fleet mix forecast reflects the ADNE reduction goals
of the Noise Budget Ordinance. The establishes? AD:~'E
reduction goals are intended to ensure that forecasted
improvement in fleet mix are realized.
hTA-la Currently, the noise budget is negotiated wit. affected
air carriers. Thy negotiated agreements with a*fected
air carriers, together with backup documents, are
presented in Appendix E of the NCP, as a :ne-~orandu-~
entitled, " Noise Budget: Report to Cor..~issicr. - Air
Carrier Negotiations, June 25, 1987." Forma'_ letters c..
agreement have been obtained from Northwest, Continental,
Delta, and Midway Airlines. LQtters pl¢dging coapcraticn
have beta obtained from American, Trans world, ant:
Eastern Airlines. The Metropolitan Airports Ccr~missicr.
monitors airline performance monthly, and publishes ncise
levels during noise sensitive months. Znfornatior. on
monthly noise levels by airline are n;ade av2ilable.
approved as a voluntary measure only. We s;:pport the
effort to arrive at voluntary agreeme:a wit': varioLS a_.
carriers to achieve noise mitigation. In oLr view, the
attempt to reach goals voluntarily is far superior :~ tl^.e
legislative approach outlined in sub-measure NA-lB below.
It should be noted that this approval should not be
construed as approval of MAC's specific goals or
methodology. As indicated in a 1988 Report to Congress,
the FAA requires and evaluates minimal data under Part
150 with respect to voluntary agreements. Primarily, t..".e
FAA is interested in whether an agreement providts noise
benefits and whether it is, in fact, truly voluntary with
respect to all users. Accordingly, the FAA assumes that
MAC's voluntary agreements with incumbent fir carrier
users will not be used to exclude new entrants or others
who may not have been represented in the discussions wit?:
MAC.
NA-lb The Metropolitan Airports Commission plans to enact the
noise budget ordinance which it adopted as Ordinance No.
68 dated April 7, 1987, if negotiated agreements fzil to
provide noise reduction benef~.ts comparable to the noise
reduction goals of the ordinances.
3
'~
~ ti/
Disapproved oendina tie submission of add~t~onal
information. Deficiencies in information and analysis
regarding this sub-measure include the following. The
FAA cannot conduct an informed review of thQ burden on
cammerce because of the lack of analysis of noise
benefits vs. the impact on aiz coaunerce (sore level cf
adverse impact on commerce would be anticipated since t::e
mandatory ordinance is proposed to be enacted i~ the air
carriers cannot voluntarily meet MAC's noise reduction
goals). The noise metric (ADNE) created by the airpcrt
operator does equate to the noise metric prescribe ir.
Part 150. The FAA, furthermore, has outstandir.5
questions regarding :~lAC's selected baseline gcal ar.d its
allocation scheme, and with the penalties and sanctions
provisions of the proposed ordinancQ. ThQ FAA re:~air.,
available to provide more specific analytical deta::s
should MAC decide to pursue such an ordinance.
NA-2. Exempt the Quietest stage 3 Aircraft from Noise P,batece^.:
Flight Traeks (NCP page III.4, Exhibit 4 oa III-3, ZZI-
51, III-52, Tabls IV-1 following page ZQ-l and 7-ppQndix
C, page 18. 711 so, NA Program pages 32 .and SS). ThQ
Ketropolitan Airports Commission recommends to exempt
Stage '3 aircraft, which produce less than 91 EPNdb or.
takeoff ''(according to Part 36 Certification Levels), fraW
following required noise abate:~ent flight tracks,
specifically the required d-mile final for a'_1 land..^.cs,
the Eager. departure carridor, the 1, 500 foct Ms :~i:~i:-.;::-.
altitude for beginning turns off Runways 22 a^~ 4, ar.~
turn rQStrictions off Runways 29L and 22. Several Stacc
3 aircraft, the DC-10, L-1011, and 8-747, would not be
exempt because they produce greater than 91 EP*Idb c::
takeoff. This measure would provide a small benefit tc
the air carriers for introducing Stage 3 aircra__*t and
could be a factor in reducing Stage 2 operations with
small amounts of noise over new areas. Changes in noise
would not be large enough to bring about any revision cf
the noise contours. ATC would be able to more
efficiently handle traffic as needed, having a positive
impact on Air Traffic Control workload and .on capacit}• of
PRS. As the proportion of Stage 3 aircraft increases,
the exemption will need to be revaluated and some
modification of the exemption may be required. The Air
Traffic Control Tower would implement these procedures by
amending the Tower Letter describing the runway use.
program to include the exemption for specific Stage 3
aircraft, subject to the authority of the pilot in
command to request an anender3 departure rleazaace
pursuant to FAR 91.75.
4
55 1-~F`~
Disapproved De*~dirQ subm;ss~on of additiona_ in_cr-:a~:c-
The Part 150 NCP documentation states that this measure
would result in a "minor" increase in noise over new
areas. There is no more definitive indication of the
noise impacts of this recommendation, nor is there a
clear understanding of the noise benefits to be gained.
Based on the information provided, the .FAA is currently
unable to determine whether this recommendation meets the
Part 150 standard of seducing noncompatible land uses.
Also, FAA air traffic control expresses considerab?e
concern about requiring controllers to single out
specific aircraft models, based on noise, for separate
departure and arrival routing. This measure needs
furthQr analysis before implementation.
NA-3. Negotiate with The Airlines A IIstr Fee To 8a Lsvied On
Laadings 8p stage 2 aircraft, With Revenues To Be Used
For Nome Compatibility Programs (NCP page ZZI-s, Exhi~it
S on page II2-7, Exhibit 6 on page III-8, III-52, Table
IV-1 lollowinq page 20-1 and Appendix C, nothing
identified. Alsa, NA Program page 33, Figurt No. s
following paq• 33 aad page S3). The Met-ozolitan
Airports Commission plans to negotiate an agrser..ert with
the carriers to pay an additional modest cha_ge for
landings by aircraft other than Stage 3 aircraft. T::is
agreeaent would be sought for current leases, and would
be included in the negotiation of new leases. The f~.:r.~s
collected through this charge would be earmarked to be
expended in implepenting the Airports Cor..m~ssicr.'s nose
compatibility progran.
p~sapproved pendir the st:bmissian of updated
information. The FAA does not disagree with the cer.ceF:.
of a negotiated noise landing-fee. However, the FP.P.
understands that the fee actually being imple:~ented at
MSP differs somewhat from the description in the Norse
Compatibility (NCP) Program for MSP. To date, the
airport operator has not submitted an analysis of its
revised noise landing fee in its NCP. The FAA is unable
to realistically evaluate the measure without this
additional information.
yeasures To Increase ~'he Use 0~ The Preferential Runway S
NA-4. Relocate Runway 4/22 (NCP page IIZ-6, Exhibit 7 on page
III-9, page IZZ-l0, Exhibit s on page ZZI-ll, page ZZZ-
~8, Table I9-1 followiaq page Iv-1, and Appendix c, pages
18 aaa 19. Also, xA program page Zs, Figure Vic. 2
5
~: - --'..
~7 ~ ~~
`..•
`.
follovrinq page 18, page 19, Figure xo. 3 following page
19 and page 55. Finally, page 3 of the Juae l6, 1989
latter). The Metropolitan Airports Commission pla.^.s t~
extend Runway 4/22 by 2,750 feet to the southwest, with
highly restricted use of the northernmost 2,750 feet cf
runway. This would remove the interaction between
Runways 4-22 and 11L/29R, with capacity benefits and
reduced runway crossings. The improved preferentia;
runway system (PRS) capacity would allow for 6-10 daily
hours of PRS use when winds pezzlittad (S3 percent c: the
' time) .
The jurisdictions in which non-compatible land-use wculc
increase with greater usa of the preferential runwa}~ we_e
specifically included in the adoption process. T~,e
jurisdictions affecfied, Richfield and.Bloomingtcr., .rz:'e
been represented on MASAC and as land use reviewers.
These jurisdictions and their residents have also
received opportunities to comment at public hearings a^d
tc review pu~lisred matera:s. The race..*.tly cc-pl=_e-
E^vironmental Assessme^t or. this issue prcvidc:
additional oppertur.ities for comment by affect e::
comnunitias and zaside^,ts. Further oppcrtun~ties _*~r
public review and comment will be provided in the
recently initiated EIS process.
g~ezoved in concept. if the 2750 foot axte^.sior. tc
Runway 4/22 is accompanied by the needed taxiway Z":~.
staging area improveWents, the use of Runway 22 fc:
departures would be increased. However, displzcinc *ha
landing threshold of Runway 22 by 2750 feet to the
southwest would conversexy licit the use o: the rur.•~:a•;•
due to the wake turbulence at the intersectio^ of Ru:~:~.'a•_,
4/2~ and 29R/11L. Furtre: Qvaluation of the technic~'_
details of this proposed runway project is being
undertaken in an EIS. In addition, the FRA has been
informed that MSP wants to substitute a new arrange:~crt
!or its-preferential runway system. In this regard, r~.Ac
would need to document the continued validity of this
recommendation.
NA-5. Redue• General Aviation Activities by Providing
Incentives to Relocate at Other Airports (NCP page III-
l0, Lzhibit 9 on page III-12, III-13, IZI-49, Table IV-1
foliovinq page 2v-1, and Appendix c, papas lo, i1 and 21.
Also, ~ Program pages 23 and SS). The Metropolita^
Airports Commission proposes to provide incentives at
reliever airports to encourage general aviation operators
to relocate non-essential operations to these ether area
airports. The revised forecasts of air activity (January
6
~..~
198 i ) assume that the ince^.tives prcgra^, together w: ~ a
downward trend in the levels of general aviation. act~vi~y
at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), will
result in a reduction from 106,700 operations in 1985 to
about X5,600 operations in 1992. This reduction of
genaral aviation operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport would lower hourly demand and allow
more use of-the Preferential Runway System (PRS) by air
sorrier aircraft. In the short term, this would allow
one hour on an average day additional use of the PRS. Yr.
1990, some use of the PRS would still be possible with
this measure in effect. The noise effects in levels o_`
jet aircraft use of the PRS is includQd in the
calculation of the 1992 Noise Exposure Map.
NA-5a. The Metropolitan Airports Commission proposes to provide
financial incentives such as subsidized rentals/leases or
fixed base operation facilities at other reliever
airports.
Disappzo~p,endina the sub-fission of adCitic^21
ir.lormaticn. The Metropolitan Airports Com~r~_ssion (u.AC;
has not adequately responded to the FAA's previous
request to providQ information on the net benefit of this
measure. The FAA seeks evidence that-the nois: benefit
to be gained around Minneapolis-St. Paul Internaticnal
Airport jMSP) would not be outwsighed by increased r.cise
impacts at reliever airports. More recently, the FAA has
been informed that MSP wants to substitute a new
arrangement foz its preferential runway systen. In this
regard, MAC would need to document-the continued vapidity
of this recommendation. With respect to FAA's
responsibilities under the airport gra.^.t program, Fe.A
would have to look closely at any complaints invclving
unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory conditions
regarding implementation of this measure.
NA-5b. The Metropolitan Airports Commission proposes to provide
improvements at reliever airports using its own funds and
AZP development funds .(not earmarked noise funds) to
encourage general aviation activities to relocate from
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to its
reliever airports:
-Installation of the IIS at Airlake, see NCP Appen~ix C,
page 11,
-Completion as soon as possible of the improve~:ent
program at St. Paul Downtown, see NCP Appendix C, page
20, and
Arsslsratsd program of inpz"flvements at ~-no3ca and Airlake
7
airports, see NC Appendix C, page 21.
Disa^preved pend~na the submission of additional
information. The FAA's information needs are the sane as
those cited under NA-5a above. There would be no appare:;t
grant compliance issue under this particular
recommendation. This Part 150 disapproval for lack o*
information should in no way be construed as disccura5in;
needed development at reliever airports.
NA-Sc. Tha Metropolitan Airports Commission proposes to draf~ a
policy limiting construction of new corporate and genera.
aviation hangers and other ground facilities at
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (:r:SP) to
encourage non-essential general .aviation activities tc
relocate, see NCP Appendix C, pages l0 and 11. The *~r.~
has the authority to review and approve corst_uctior: c:
any additional corporate hangers at MSP. Since
additional corporate aviation has the potential for
ervirermental impacts, either directly or ir.direct~•: , t::e
'~.AC intends to take t~~ese i:~pacts into ccns_deratic-: _-
their approval of new faci:it~es. Of greatest cc-:cer-: :_
their potential nQgativQ OffQCt on thQ Qrviron-~cnta:
impacts of scheduled air transportation at :ASP. Tc
minimize these negative environmental impacts, t?~e r1+0
has developed a systen of raliQVar airports dQSigncd tc
attract general aviation to those facilities. With
`' regard to-corporate operators, the Metropolitan Airpc.:.s
Coabission has invested significant funds (approxi:~ate_y
Sly million) to develop a 6,700' runway and apprcxi:ra.e:;~
55 acres of hangar constructior. area at St. Paul ~c:«r.~:,»:.
Airport.
pi Sap,Q~oved oe^d' na the subr.:ission of additiar.a_
information. The FAA's information naedsare the sa-:e as
those cited under NA-5a above. The specifics oi' a^y
policy limiting construction of new corporate and genera:
aviation hangars and other ground facilities at
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport would have to
ba consistent with assurances in Federal airport grant
agreements. In this regard, the FAA needs informaticn
which indicates that the airport operator will contir.~.:e
Lo ensure continued reasonable general aviation access tc
MSP. The FAA would, additionally, have tolook clcsel}•
at any complaints involving unreasonable or unjustly
discriminatory conditions regarding implementatic:- cf
this measure.
NA-6. !-ssign Propeller aircraft to Runways i1L/29R and 11R/29L
1-Dea the PRB is in IIse (NCB pages ZII-13, ExIIibit 10 on
page III-14, III-t9, Tibla Z~•l falloatiAq page IV-1 and
~ppendiY C, nothing identitied._ l~lso, NA Program pages
8
22 and S5). The Metrocc,itan Airports Cor..^~issior.
recommends the shifting of propeller aircraft opera~ic-s
to Runway i1L/29R during pQriods when the preferential
runways are in use. It is currently used on an
occasional basis by Air Traffic Control when a large
number of light aircraft arrivals are experienced. The
shift of these operations, could make available the full
capacity of Runway 4/22 for jet aircraft, and could
extend the periods that jet aircraft on use the
preferential runways. This measure has limitQd noise
reduction benefits.
pisannroved. Air Traffic Control indicates operational
complications and safety considerations severely li^~it
the. effectiveness of this measure.
Measures To Restrict Nictht operations
NA-7. DTegotiate New And Binding Agreements With The Operators
For Nighttime IIse; Zf This cannot Be Achieved IA Six
2ionths, Regulate The xumber of Nighttime OpQrations
(S1:0o p.m. tc a:oo a.m.) To Current Levels (NCp pages
SZS-13, EYhibit 1~ on pag• ZZS-15, SZ2-16, SIZ-51 Tsble
Iv-i follovinq page ZO-1, lppandia C, pages 7 aad a and
Appendix E, Exhibits i through 7. l~lso, NA Program pages
29 and ss). The Metropolitan Airports Commission
' recommends continuation of a voluntary slot syste:~ to
restrict operations by turbojet aircraft between 1::00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m to current levels (12 arrivals, s
departures, excluding general aviation). The regulation.
of the number of nighttime operations would be
established by a Airports Coa~ission ordinance. This
measure would prevent growth in excess of the voluntary
level the Airports Commission set.
NA-7a. At present, the Metropolitan Airports Commission
negotiates a voluntary agreement to restrict operations
at the airport by turbojet aircraft between 11:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m., but excludes general aviation operations.
This sub-measure describes a voluntary agreement between
the Airports Commission and certain airlines. However,
there are a significant number of airlines serving the
airport, other than those who entered into_the existing
agreement. Currently, operations are substantially below
the authorized number of flights. This measure, to
negotiate new, binding agreements, would reduce the
number of allowable nighttime flights to current levels,
12 arrivals and 8 departures, excluding general aviation
operations. It also would integrate Chase air carriers
who are not parties to the current agreement into the
process.
9
sS 1-~F~
A~oroved as volunta-,y measure only. This sub-^,eas::: a .s
approved as a voluntary measure only, as reflected ir.
agreements with air carriers in Exhibits 1 through ~ ~^
Appendix E of the NCP. The FAA's determination in this
regard has been limited to whether the agreements p.ov:~e
a noise benefit and whether they are, in fact, voluntary.
NA-7b. The Metropolitan Airports Commission plans to enact a.^.
ordinance to restrict nighttime operations to curre.^.t
levels utilizing a slot system, it new, binding
agree.~ents with the operators cannot bQ achieved ir. six
months. This sub-measure would reduce the nur:~er cf
allocable nighttime flights to 12 arrivals a..^.d 8
departures, excluding general aviation operations.
isa~zroved_Aendinc the subn~ssion of additions:
infornation. The NCP points out that the voluntary
measure has beer. effective ir. restricting r.ghtti-c
cperations and that a ma^datory restricticr. wcu? d ::a•.•e :^c
effect on existing noise levels. The expresses p~rrc:,e
of this measure would be to prevent growth i.l excess c~
voluntary levels. In order far the FAA to determine t`:e
reasonableness of such a restriction in relation tc the
noise problem and whether the restriction would pose an
unCUe burden 'to interstate or Foreign conmerce, the
airpcrt operator would neQd to quantity the noise prc~._-
which is not able to be solved through voluntary
agreements and provide inforaation on the anticipated
burden on cotamerce of a aardatory restriction . T`_:e P :,
would also need informatior. to determine whether sus:: e
mandatory restriction would be unjustly discri^inatcry.
NA-8. Eztend The Nighttime 8estricted Hours To 11:00 Q.M. To
8:00 7-.M. On 6aturday and Suadap xorniags (NCP pages III-
36, Exhibits 12 aad 13 on III-17 aad III-18, III-30,
-Table Io-t following page IV-i, flppeadix c, pages 7, e
aad 9 and 71pp~ndiz B, Exhibits 3 through 7. A1ao, xA
Program pages zs, Zs aad S6). The Metropolitan Airports
Commission plans to extend the nighttime restricted hours
by two hours on Saturday and Sunday mornings. The
extension would be applied in two phases, adding one 2:ou_
immediately, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and in 1988, ad::
another hour, from 7:00 a.m.to 8:00 a.lu. Operations by
Stage 3 aircraft in the 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. tiaeframe
would not be subject to the weekend restriction. If
measure NA-7 results in regulated nighttime operational
limits, this measure would reflect "required" rat..".er t}'.a.^.
"voluntary" participation. The principal noise be^.efi:.s
that would be accrued would be the reduction in
potentially disruptive overflights dz:ring the early
10
Ss i-5a
~. ~-
morning hours on weekends. The flights affected by L'~e
restriction include the first daily flights to and frc^ a
number of destinations, especially in the east. Some
loss of early morning service to and from destinations
for Minneapolis-st. Paul area residents would result.
NA-8a. The Metropolitan Airports commission plans to extend
voluntary agreements with air carrier to restrict
operations on Saturday and Sunday mornings between the
hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:0o a.m. There are currently 3.
air carrier operations (15 arrivals and lb departures) ir.
this two-hour tine period that would be affected on
Saturdays, and 20 air carrier operations (10 arriva~s and
10 dQparturas) on Sundays. This is compared to 5 air
carrier operations affected during the voluntary.
nighttime restriction hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.r...
on weekends. operations by stage 3-aircraft ir. the E:oc
a.m. to 8:00 a.m. timeframe would not be subject to the
weekend restriction, and could mitigate the necative
impacts on scheduling early morning service.
jggrgyld as a voluntary measure only. This-sub-r,easurs
is approved as a voluntary measure only, as reflected it
agreements with air carriers in Exhibits 2 through ~ n
Appendix E of the NCP. The FAA's determination in thi~
regard has been limited to whether the agreements providE
a noise benefit and whether they are, in fact, voluntary.
ti'P.-8b. The Metropolitan Airports Co:rr~ission plans to enact an
ordinance. to restrict operations on Saturday and Surd~y
mornings between the hours of 6:OO a.m. and B:OO a.m., i°
Measure NA-7 is made mandatory. There are currently 31
air carrier operations (15 arrivals and 16 departures) ir.
this two-hour time period that would be affected on
Saturdays, and 20 air carrier operations (10 arrivals and
10 departures) on Sundays. This is compared to 6 air
carrier operations affected during the nighttime
restriction hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on
weekends. Operations by Stage 3 aircraft in the 6:00
a.m. to 8:00 a.m. timeframe would not be subject to the
weekend restriction. ~ ~.
information. The documentation in the NCP raises
questions regarding the burden on commerce, but dces net
provide enough analysis for the FAA to determine whether
there would be an undue burden to interstate or fore:~r:
commerce. The FAA would also need inforation to
determine whether such a mandatory restriction wculd be
unjustly discriminatory.
li
~~
ss ~-s~
*~e~su-es Relating Tc F'iart Tracks And Other Measures
NA-9. Zmplemeat Cedar Avenue Procedure for Runway 22 Departures
(9tCP pages III-16, ~chiDit 14 on page I22-19, III-2o,
ZII-21, Table I4-1 lelloo-ing page Io-1, and AppQndix C,
nothing id~ntiti~d. Also DtA program, notninq identified..
see Page 2 0! Iitrch 7, 1990 letter for additional
elarilieatioa). The Met.opolitan Airparta Com.*~issicr.
proposes to obtain FAA agreement to implement the Ceda.
Avenue procedure for aircraft departing Runway 22. T::is
measure would have all lage aircraft dQparting frar..
Runway 22 to either turn cr. a handing east of and rcugh_y
paralleling Cedar AvenuQ, or to turn westward, rema*:ir.c
over the I-494 corridor for 2 1/2 to 3 miles whQ.^. t::ev
wauld ba high enough that their noise would no lcn5e~~
create major disruption to residential areas below. '*'his
procedure would be utilize^~ whenever R•.:nway 22 is a=ed
fcr departures. The neasure uses previous ;~~"",
cc^tours to i:lustrate this departure. MAC :eels t: et
the relativQ benefits of the concept remain essentia_iy
unchanged, although speci:ic impacts could. chg.^.ge if a
diflerent base year is selected. Since FAR Part 15c
requires that measure be reasonably related to the goz,
• of reducing non-compatible-land. use, the justi:icatic^
for the peasure, according to I~AC, appear s tc be so~.:r.d .
The effects of t.~ie recor~ended measure are included in
the NEM. The need for ar. NDB to facilitate this ^easure
has not been establisred at this point, but it ~z}• be
required to a*.hance confer ante to desired flight track.
MAC states that FAA's mason for declining to inple~.Ert
was that the level of controller effort was net justif:e
by the limited number of departures af:ected. Ir.
subsequent evaluation of flight track options as past e:
the Runway 4/22 EIS, MAC states that ATC has indicated
that this procedure may be accommodated as use o~ the
runway increases.
Disamproved. FAA policy at this time is to not implement
the 180 degree departure heading for south and southeast-
bound aircraft departing Runway 22, despite a formal
request from the Metropolitan Airports Co~~nission that
this proceduzal turn be instituted as a standard
procedure. FAA's reason for declining to impleme-a this
measure is that the proposal would adversely affect
efficiency by requiring exclusive use yr the 180 degree
departure heading for south and southeast bound aircraft.
ATC would reconsider adding the 180 degree•headino tc the
'' - ot3~er headings operationally required under the prowcsed
increased use of 4/22.
ZZ
~~ , - ~~
~~ ~~
NA-10. Tighten IIp Procedures For 1Ceepiaq Aircraft Departing
runways i1L aad i1R to the "ggaa Corridor~~ (NCP pages
iZI-21, Ezhibit 15 oa III-22, IZI-23, 12I-s3, Table IV-1
tolloviaq page sv-t, aad 7lppendiz C, pages 1~ and is.
711so, ~tA program paq• t2 and S6). Tho Metropolitan
Airports commission proposes to encouraq• FAA`s Air
Traffic Control Tower to utilize headings for departure
off Runways i1L and ilR which keep aircraft in the
designated Eagan Corridor, except where safety
considerations dictate diversions outside of the
corridor. The latter is mainly to provide diverging
paths between simultaneous Runway 11L and i1R departures.
When traffic levels are light and simultaneous departures
on Runways i1L and 11R are not required, use of headings
on Runway. 11L oZ IlG degrees, an3 on Runway 11R of o90
degrees to 110 degrees should be specified. when split
local controllers (one for Runway 11L and t:~e other Sor
11R) are utilized, increased coordinaticn between
controllers will be required. Subsequent to the cric;^a=
analysis, MA has collected Dore extensive field data cr.
the flight tracks actually flown in the corridor. :fey
have found that there are occasions whe:~ aircraft are
given headings outside of the corridor when this is nct
necessary from a safety viewpoint. This measure would be
directed at eliminating t.*:is unnecessary deviation trc:-:
the corridor.
Disa~~roved. A required/mandatory increase o~f
coordination between local controllers is unaccep~able
from an air safety standpoint. However, this iss::e can
be addressed in routine controller noise abatement
awareness training.
NA-li. Test IIse of I-494 Corridor For Aircraft Departing Runway
Z2 (NCp pages III-23, Rzhibit i6 oA III-24, E7Cbibit 17 on
III-2S, 222-35, III-S6, Table Iv-1 following paga IV-1,
aad llppendiz C, pag• 18.. Aiaa, N7- Program paga 43,
i~igur• Dto. a foiloaiaq page 13 and paga S6). The
Metropolitan Airports Commission proposes to work with
FAA to set up, on a test basis, procedures to channelize
northbound and west bound turbojet traffic departing
Runway 22 over the industrial/commercial corridor along
Y-494. The availability of suitable navigational aids
penaits easier implementation than previously was.
possible. After a specified period, the results of the
test would be evaluated and a decision made to implement
as rscammended, implement with adjustments, or not to
impiemeilt. phis measure would shift more impacts fro^:
residential areas to the I-494 commercial corridor.
..Exhibit 17 .on page ZII 25 indicates the ~iagls-QVBnt
13
=~= =---
Ss i -53
noise benefits which the 27o degree depart:~re headir:~
would provide over a 350 degree heading. The noise
reduction benefits are significant in terms of overall
program effectiveness.
~ap~roved. Restricting all north and westbound
aircraft to one departure track would significantly
impact dQlays and adversely affect efficiency,
particularly with the increased usage envisioned by the
4/22 extension. This item may be reexamined by ATC as
part o2 the EIS process concerning the 4/22 exter.s~o~.
NA-12. Ealorce llighttin• Run-up policy (NCP pages ZII-23,
' Exhibit is on page ZZZ-26, ZZZ-27, IZ2-56, Table IV-1
follewing page Io-1, aad NCP Appendiz C, pages 9 and S0.
Also, b~A Program pages 45 aad S6). The Metropciitar.
Airports CcmTissicn plans on maintaining its cur_ent
pclicy which requires that a'_1 rur.-ups be ccr.duc.e _-
the Northwest Airlines a_ ee , at a heath.^g c` 25'..' la C':=~C-:S
+ or - 20 degrees. Ru.^-ups are currently proribited
between 11:00 p.m. and 0600 a.m., except to ful:i:l
eaergency requirements. Noise monitors are insta~lec ~n
the area to record run-up incidents. The Airports
Commission plans to undertake more rigorous entorce:~e-:
-`of the policy, `inclucir.c investigation to dete::*.ine if
events in the curfew hours were in-fact emergencies, a::~
also .take follow-up activities for non-justified.
violations.
A~oroved.
NA-13. Improve The ?ioaitorinq And Enfore~ment Of ]-11 Noise
Abatam~at K~asuras (NCP pages III-27, Ezhibit 19 on III-
28, ZII-S6, Table ZO-1 lollvviaq page I9-1, aad J1pp•ndix
C, pages ~, s, s, 14, aad 22. ]11so, HA Erogram pages ~6
and sa). The Metropolitan Airports commission plsr.s to
undertakt the following actions to improve the monitori^g
and enforcement of all noise abatement measures: instal=
a permanent off-airport noise monitoring syste:*, conduct
sensitivity sessions with pilots and air traffic
controllers; and increase the noise abatement sta=+
budget to allow follow-up on all measures.
NA-13a. The Metropolitan Airports Comsaission plans to install a
permanent off-airport noise monitoring syster, see NCP
Appendix C, page 22. Monitoring would be conducted 24-
hours a day, year round (weather permitting). Aso, whe:-:
technology is available,:operational monitoring will be
added. A series of microphones will be installed at
ap`pro~+riate lecatiorie in tba surrou~~c3ing ro*~~nities
14
ss --5~
,~, ...,
feeding into computer equipment that would record and
aggregate noise levels at each monitoring location. The.
monitoring system(now called the M5P Noise and Operations
Monitoring System)., will provide a continuous indication
of noise levels in the community, and will allow
identification of variations in flight activity at
particular locations. This system should provide more
complete and continuous coverage than the portable
monitoring equipment .currently in use. .when the
monitoring system can be tied into the FAA terminal rada-
system (ARTS .IIIA Radar), additional data will be
available which will greatly Qnhance the useability of
noise monitoring information. The Metropolitan Airports
Commission will need to negotiate an ARTS IIIA Radar Data
Access Agreement with FAA. ThQ estimated cost of the MSr
Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) is
currently (1990) $1.3 million. MAC expects to have the
ANOMS installed and operational by the Sumner of 1991.
Approved.
3A-13b. The Metropolitan Airports Commission plans to encourage
noise abatement sensitivity sessions with pilots and air
traffic controllers, see xcP Appendix C, pages 4, 5, and
6. Specifically, the Airports Commission will request
.that FAA hold noise sensitivity sessions for all FAQ, Air
Traffic Controllers and include noise sensitivity as pa:t
of ongoing training requirements. The Airports
Commission will develop and carry out a pla^. to suppor~
and increase. pilot sensitivity to noise abatement
procedures at the airport. This will include
communication with the Chief Executive Officers (CEO's;
of the airlines serving the airport. The CEO's will be
informed by .letter of the noise problem at the airport
and the solutions being considered and implemented.
Their cooperation and suggestions would be sought, wity
hopes that the CEO's would heighten the awareness of the
need for complying with noise abatement procedures within
their organizations.
ggproved. FAA's ATCT already conducts noise abatement
procedure training to all new controllers and noise
sensitivity briefings are held on a regular basis for all
controllers.
NA-13c. The Metropolitan Airports Commission plans increase the
noise abatement staff budget and to follow-up on all
measures, see NCP Appendix C, page 14. This will allow
the Airports Commission to be attuned tv on-going airpcr~
operations and increase coordination with air traffic
control tower personnel, in relation to runway use under
a given set of wind and traffic demand. Also, this
15
'~ . C
~ c. _..-_
~.i ~~/
L.~ c ~ ~: ~ C CC-
measure would <nabie the Airports Commissier. tc be -:c re
responsive to complaints, to increase its ability to
provide information with regard to airport operaticr.s to
the community, and to complete a more aggressive noise
monitoring program.
ApB~oved.
NA-14. Zastali A Microwave Landing Spstem on $unv:y 1SL tNCP
pages Z22-27, ZII-29, ZIZ-S6, III-S7, Table Iv-1
loilovinq page Zv-i, and Appeadiz C, pages 12, 13 and 23.
11Iso, NA Program page S6). Ths Metropolitan Arpcrts
commissior. plans to-install a.microwave landing sys~e*~ cr.
Runway 11L to provide the opportunity for aircras`.. tc `.y
vazying glide angles and curved approaches to t::at ru:;wey
end. This would allow aircraft to avoid flights over
noise sensitive areas.
Qisazc~cve~' oerdir^ suL-' ss; or of additicr.al ir.`cr-.a`.^-~.
Additional justification will be needed, and a*.a_ys~s c`
the noise impacts of specific curved approaches r.::s:. be
provided. The Metropolitan Airports Commissior:'s initia=
analysis concluded that the benefits of the MIS would
only be realized after 1995 if curved approaches would be
`possible. In' the interim, it was concluded that an :i5
to Runway 11L would provide the sane bone:its t::at an N..S
could provide now. Runway S1L was recently scuippec wit::
an ILS. This measure as originally written is r.ow
meaningless. It would seem that the Airports Co:-:r.:sa:cr.
needs to look at all the runways to determine wrere
curved approaches would be justified for noise purposes.
Only then can specific recommendations be develc~ed as `:,
which runway ends should be equipped with I~1S eg~ip:~:ent
once curved approaches are possible and detera:ir.e w2:a
flight.tracks would be most beneficial. NCP Appendix C,
page 23 had preferable wording for this measure.
T.~h~ jZSE MANAGEMENT MEASURES
The narrative description for each Land Use Management Measure
re°erences the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) docur:ert, bu~
includes as well references to a companion background document
called the "Land Use Management Plan"(Li3M Plan), dated April 2C,
1987. The LUM Plan document was prepared under the Part 15c
Study by the airport sponsor's consultant HI~1TB for review by the
Metropolitan Sound ~bate~ent Council {MASAC). This latter group
`was established to came up with recommendations for the Noise
Compatibility ~Pragrasa t~i~Pi Snt i_~*~*i _~~iis-St. Paul
lb
.~ ss r-~
International Airport. The LUM Plar. document incorporated
appropriate parts of the Aviation Chapter of the MetropoZita::
Council's Development Guide as its Appendix B. Aftez their
review, the MASAC recommended measurQS to be included in the
airport sponsor's (Metropolitan Airports Commission) NCP
submittal.
It should be noted that Appendix D to the Aviation Chapter of the
Metropolitan Development Guide provides land use compatibility
guidelines for the communities surrounding the airport,. by
delineating the impact of aircraft noisQ in terms of four
Aircraft Noise Zones contained in the Metropolitan Council
"policy contour. "The 7~nd Use Management Plan, compares the
Metropolitan Development Guide's land use guidelines with the F1~
Part i50 Compatibility-Criteria, as applied to the airpcrt
environs. In all cases, the Metropolitan Development CCUnc~:
Gu'_de is at least as protective as the FAR Part 150 Compatibility
Criteria. As shown in Exhibit 2, page I-7 in tht NCP, the
Men=omolitan Council Aircraft Noise Zones extend beyond tre 1992
:dn 65 noise contour. with the Qxc2ption of one sr„all area t~
the southwest of the airpcrt, the Ldn bS noise contour is w_t`:~':
Aircraft Noise Zone Three. Similarly, the Ldn 70 contour i~
contained in Aircraft xoise Zane Twe. The Ldn 75 contour is
essentially on-airport.
Application of the Metropolitan Council Guidelines to the ^ci~e
zones defined by the 1992 Ldn will satisfy the FAR Part 150 la^.d
use compatibility criteria. Consequently, the established
criteria are retained for land use planning purposes. However,
ccrrective measures such as noise insulation would be funded wit'.:
federal grant assistance. In order to be consistent with f~.:^dir.g
priorities, the FAR Part 150 compatibility criteria are applied
tc the MSP 1992 Ldn Contours to establish program eligibility.
It should be noted that Exhibit 2I on NCP page III-32 (Figure IV-
2, following page 20 of the LUM Plan) 6hows the Minneapolis-5 t.
Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise Zones. These maps are
representations of a larger map found in the Aviation Chapter of
the Metropolitan Development Guide. Also, Exhibit 25 on NCP page
III-37 (Figure IV-3, following page 23 in the LUM Plan) show the
1992 noise exposure contours. These maps are representations of
a larger map entitled "Noise Exposure Map for 1992", found in t'.:e
back of the Noise Exposure Map Submittal dated May. 19&9 (sponsor
certification of the document and the official NEM is dated
9/25/89).
The land use management measures accepted for adoption by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission and inclusion in its NCP
submittal are described below
17
Oil ~ L^_ ~ y`~
' C .. .
SS I + .~/~
'~~ vi
-eve..^.tative Measures
LII-1. Amaad Loeai Land Css plans To erinq Them Znto Conlormanee
•ith Ths xatropolitan Council's Nois• compatibility
Guidelines (b1CP pages I22-3o, Lzhibit ZO oa III-31,
~t.Dibit 2l on ZZZ-32, ZZZ-SS, Tabls SV-1 iolloning page
Io-1, and ~ppQndiY c, pages Z2 and 23. ~-lso, LUM Plan
paga 20, Fiqurs Z9-2 loilowiaq paga 20, and pages 31, 35,
and 37). The Metropolitan Airports Commission will wo_k
wit~i the Metropolitan Council to revise the noise
compatibility guidelines in the Aviatien Chapter o: t::e
Metropolitan Development Guide if needed. The Airports
Commission..-will also request that .local jurisdictions, i::
cocrdination with the Metropolitan Council, review their
comprehensive land use pls.^.s to determine if amendr.en*_s
are necessary for them to conform with the Metropclitan
Council's "Guidelines for Land LTse Compatibility wit::
Aircraft Noise" contained in the Aviaticn C::apter c. t.`.e
Metropolitan Development Guide. The following
communities would be involved in this review and
amendment process: Minneapclis, St. Paul, Mendota
Heights, Inver Grove geights, Egan, Blocrr,ington,
Richfield, Mendota, and Sunfish Lake. This propose'
measure is of moderate importance. It will net, r.
" ~~ itself, eliminate ncn-compatible. uses, but is a ^ecessa-•_
action to apply regulatory actions which will inhibit
non-compatible development. with few exceptions, t!^e
Compre.*:ensive Land Use Plans for all the coru~ur.ities
adjacent to the airport are ccrsistert with the La-:~ :~e
Compatibility Guide. For those communities where t`.:e
current plan is "inconsistent", revisions are still bei~-:g
considered. Zn event that final revisions remain
incompatible with the Aviation Policy Plan, legisla~ion
exists to declare a particular project to be of
"Metropolitan Significance" and subject to additional
study for up to one year. Through metropolitan
signiiicancs reviews, greater communication and
coordination within the community and adjacent
communities.
goyroved.
LU-2. Some For Compatible Development (DiCP pages III-30,
Exhibit 21 on ZZ2-32, EYnibit 22 on ZZZ-33, ZII-58, Table
I9-i lollowinq page Iv-1, sad Appendix C, pages 22 and
23. 711 so, LIIM Plaa pages 13 and 15, Figure Zv-2
Sollo~iaq page 20, and pages 21, 31, 35 and 37). .The
Metropolitan Airports Commission will request Lint loci:
jurisdictions review existing zoning in Airpcrt Noise
Zarses to ~rmisit thsi.r cflaaistency with "6uidelines for
18
Land Use Compatibility with Aircraft Noise" and rezone
for compatible development if consistent with other
community development factors. Communities affected ~y
this measure include areas within the Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise Zones contained
in the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan DQVelopmQr.t
Guide (Exhibit 21 on NCP page III-32/Figure Iv-2
following page 20 in the LUM Plan). The specific
communities affected are: Minneapolis, St.Paul, Mendota
Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Bloomington,
Richfield, Mendota, and Sunfish Lake.. The Noise Zones
extend beyond the 1987 and 1992 65 Ldn noise contours
developed in the NEM subaittal. It is hoped that this
measure-will prevent the introduction of non-compatible
development in the designated noise zones.
~,poroved .
LL'-3. Apply aoninq Pezformaace Standards (NCP pages III-30,
Exhibit 21 on page III-32, ZZZ-34, Exhibit 23 on III-35,
ZII-SS, IIZ-59, Tabl• III-1 following Page 20-1 and
7lppendiz C, pages 22 and 23. Also, LIIM Plan pages 13 and
SS, Eshibit IQ-2 following paq• Z0, and pages 22, 35, and
37). The Metropolitan Airports commission, in
conjunction with the 'Metropolitan council will recues~
local jurisdictions to adopt the Model Ordinance for
Airerart Noise Attenuation (Appendix D of the LU?~ Pla::;
developed by the Metropolitan Council.. The areas which
this measure would apply are within the Minneapolis-st.
Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise Zones container
in the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Developmer.~
Guide (Exhibit 21 on NCP page III-32/Figure Iv-z
following page 20 in the LUM Plan). The specific
cozmunities affected are: Minneapolis, St.Paul, Mendota
Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Bloomington,
Richfield, Mendota, and Sunfish Lake.
At~oroved
LV-4 Establish A Publio Infos-matioa Program (NCP pages III-34,
Esaibit z~ on IIZ-36, BYhibit 25 on III-37, III-S9 and
Tabl• I~1-1 following page Iv-1. Also, LIIM Plan pages 13,
16 and 23, Fiqur• I9-3 following page i3 and pages 35 and
37). The Metropolitan Airports Commission proposes to
develop and distribute informational materials concerning
aircraft noise and Noise Compatibility Progran: elements.
The informational materials would be distributed to land
developers, planning agencies, housing authorities, local
office of FHA/VA, lending institutions and realtars.
This measure would be applied to areas within the 1992
~oisa Exposuz: lSap Ldn 55* caritour (£xhibit 25 ar. NCP
19
_? _~ ..
5S 1- 5~
page III-37; Figure IV-3 fo_lowing page 23 ir. I,~'`! . __.,
gpnroved.
LII-5. itsvis• auiidiaq Codsa (NCP Ezbibit 21 oa pagQ ZiI-32,
page IZI-34, Exhibit 26 on Z2I-38, ZIZ-59 and Table IV-:
tollo~rinq paq• O-i. Alao, LBM Plan pagss 13 and lb,
Pique IV-2 following page 20, aad pagss 24, 33, and 38).
The Metropolitan Airports Corsmiasion will support t"~e
Metropolitan Council's efforts to request the State
Legislature to modify the State Building Code tc ree:.:rc
specified interior noise level reduction for new
construction (including 6ubstantial
renovation/reconstruction et existing st.ucturts; i^1
areas affected by aircra!t noise as outlined by the
Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport Aircra't Nc_sz
Zones contained in the Aviation Chapter of the
!~etropolitan Developme:-t Gu_3e (EX.}i~bit 21 an NCP Yao_ _
III-32/Figure iV-2 follcwno page 20 ir. the LL'N: P:a^
The following communities would be recuired to adept
these revisions to their building code and apply the: :c
a portion of their jurisdictions: Minneapolis, St.Paul,
Mendota Heights, InVQr Grove Heights, Eagar., Blcor..inctc:z,
'Richfield, Me.^.dota, and Sunfish Lake. The Noise zones
extend beyond the 1987 and 1992.65 Ldn noise conto~.:r
developed in the NEM submittal.
Atproved.
,~oYrective Measures
LII-6. Acquire Dtvtloped Propsrtp (pCP pagss III-34, Ezhibit 25
on III-37, IIi-39, Ezhibit 27 oa ZIZ-4o, III-s9 and Table
I9-1 lalloriaq paq• Z~-1. 7-lao, LIIId Plan pages 14 and 17,
Tiqurs Iv-l So1loMiag paq• 17, and pagss 26, 33, 33, and
38). Tht Metropolitan Airports Commission recomzends
that at the initiative of the jurisdiction .in wr.ich
incompatible land uses lie, the Airport Conmissio:^ will
acquire property developed in incompatible land uses a^~~
thin cltar and keep the land vacant as a buffer, sel+ i~
for redevelopment in a specified compatible use (with an
avigation easement), or use for airport purposes.
Presumably, this measure would only apply in these
neighborhoods where the jurisdiction has established that
them is a reasonable consensus among the residenrs ti:a.
they prefer to vacate the area. Redevelcprnent in a
spetitic corpatible use sill be subjtct to juris:icticral
~o
approval. Areas within the 1992 Noise Expcsure ~"ap 1~~:
65+ contour (Exhibit 25 on NCP page III-37/Figure I~1-?
following page 23 in L~JM Plan) would be considered
included. Acquisition-would be emphasized in the Ldr. 7~-
noise zones, where approximately 22 dwellings are
located. Acquisition in lower noise .zones, Ldn 65-75,
would ba considered undsr the following conditions:
Other ~co=npatibility measures would not be
effective.
Other land .use planning factors indicate the
desirability of land acquisition and
conversion.
Airport development and operational :actors
indicate the desirability of acquisition.
Acquisitions initiated by the Airports
Commission (not initiated by the propert~_~
owner through purchase assurance) would cccur
only if there is a substantial consensus c::
the part of neighborhood residents that they
desire acquisition. Acquisition will not be
done on a "spot" basis without the consent of
affected municipalities. Th~s acquired land,
whQn disposed oi, wiil not be subsequently
used for residential purposes.
~oproved.
LU-7. .Purchase Guaraatse/Soundproof of Homes (NCP Exhibit 25 on
page III-37, NCP page III-39, Exhibit 28 (l} sad (2} on
IIS-41a sad IiI-41b, Exhibit z9 (1) and (2) on III-42a
tad 222-42b, III-S9, III-60 and Tabl• ZV-1 following page
ZY-1. 7-lao, LIIM Plan pages i4 and 17, Figura Zv-3
Following page 23, aad ptgas 27 tIlrough 30, 32, 33, 33,
and 3a). The Metropolitan Airports Commission plans to
offer homeowners within the Ldn 65 - 75 contours (Ex::ibit
25 on NCP page III-37/Figure Iv-3 following page 23 in
LLJM Plan) the option of purchase assurance, soundproo:ir.~
in exchange for avigation ease:aent, ox no action. This
proposed measure is estimated to cost over~563,00C,000
and be applicable to almost 1,700 units for purchase
assurance and about 4,100 units for soundproo'ing.
Purchase assurance is expected to be selected by these
homeowners who find the aircraft noise levels to whic`:
they are subjected, are intolerable. The Airports
Commission would purchase existing homes in specified
araas altar the owner has made a bona fide 8tfort to .sell
Z1
Ec~ _--=
_" ~ c~_
Ss ~-~I
the proper ty sad has bee.^. unable to sel~. at a ~a:: -,ara_=
value. Acquired properry would be converted to
compatible use, or insulated and rQturned to reside.^.tial
use with appropriate ensQments and restrictions. Initial
cost of property acquisition could range frog $8~,00o to
5141,000 per dwelling unit (d.u.}. Cost o! soundprco_irg
these homes and property transfer is estimated at
$18,000/d.u. The total cost for this portion of the
measure is about 531,000,000.
Individual owners who are bothered by aircra:t no'_se but.
not to the extent they feel the need to leave the
neighborhood, will be offered additional soundproofinc at
public expense in exchange for an avigation easene-:t.
RQSidenees in the Minneapolis area typically prof=~e
superior noise level reduction (NLR}, 26-32 dB~, dire tc
climate related constrsction techniques. A recent ~.:lct
program by t,'~e Airports Coaa-ission found that the cos ~ c:
soundproo:-ing would probably range -ro:~ S~,ooa tc 525,~~^~
per dwelling u-:it (d.u.) depending or. the decYee c. r.c_se
exoosure and the extent of NL2 treatment att~-.ptef. "'.'s
total costs for soundproofing is estimated at over
$32,000,000 (avezaging about S8,0oo - 59,000/sir.,; '.e
family d.u. and $4000 - $5000/multi-tar:ily d.u. depending
on the need for air exchange/conditioning equip:~ent.
This measure is only .effective if windows and doors
remain closed. However, this measure does not ado:es~
outdoor activities.
Aotroved.
L~-8. Soundproof Behoois (NCP Exhibit 25 on page. III-37, NCP
paq• III-39, III-~3, Ezhibit 30 on III-~4, III-59, Table
IV-1 tolloYinq paq• Z9-1, and lppeadiz C, page l2. 1-lso,
LIIM Plan pages it sad 17, Piqur• IV-3 following page 23,
sad pages 2S, 32, 3S, sad 38). The Metropolitan Aizport~
Commission proposes to apply interior noise level
reduction (NLR) techniques to at least two schools
located within the 65 Ldn contour (Exhibit 25 on NC? page
III-37/Figure IV-3 following page 23 in LIIM Pla::}. T`.:ese
schools are Wenonah Elementary School in Minneapolis a.^.~
Centennial School in Richfield. It is probab:e that
additional schools in close proximity to the Ldr. 65 nose
contour experience significant classroom disruption due
to aircraft noise. An investigation of the situation at
other schools is necessary to assess the need for further
school insulation on a case-by-case basis.
~pnroved.
22
L'J-9. eoundpreof other Public Buildings (NCP Bahibit 25 on page
ZII-37, ~iCP page IZI-43, ZYhibit 30 en 522-44, ZII-59 and
Table Zv-1 lollo~inq paq• Iv-1, and LIIM Plan pages 14 .and
l7 ,• Fiqur~ Zv-3 following page 23, sad pages 2s, s2, 3s,
and 383. -The Metropolitan Airports Commission proposes
to apply interior noise level reduction (NLR) techniques,
on a case by case basis, to public buildings, other than
schools, containing noise sensitive uses. These uses
include libraries, nursing homes, convalescent homes and
community centers within the Ldn 65 contour (Exhibit 25
on NCP page 12I-37/Figure IV-3 following page 23 in LUM
Plan). The level of concern in these buildings is
generally less than in schools. The proposed measure
does not identify specific structures for treatment, but
r~eognizes that such treatment may be appropriate on a
case by case basis.
~,omroved .
Z3
ss ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 17
Agenda May 7, 1990
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the disciplinary action recommended by staff for
those liquor establishments who allegedly sold liquor to minors
in March, 1990.
Background•
In March, 1990, undercover Police Officers and a minor entered
the following establishments in an attempt to determine if the
minor would be successful in purchasing alcohol. The
establishments involved were:
- Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante -7717 Nicollet
- Ground Round - 1500 East 78th Street
- Champps - 790 West 66th Street
- Davanni's Pizza & Hot Hoagies - 2312 West 66th Street
- Sandy's Tavern - 6612 Penn
The minor was successful in purchasing alcohol in each instance
and the establishments were charged with a gross misdemeanor.
On April 18 and April 20, staff and the City Attorney met with
the owners, managers and attorney for each establishment to
discuss the allegations and to arrive at a possible disposition
of the matter. Staff and each establishment have reached an
agreement as to the discipline to be recommended to City Council
and the establishments have agreed to the discipline by signing a
stipulation subject to Council approval.
Public Safety Director Erskine will discuss the specifics of each
of those stipulations at the Council Study Session scheduled for
Monday, May 7, 1990.
Recommended Motion:
No action required.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The disciplinary hearing for the establishments listed is
scheduled for Monday, May 14, 1990.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:cak
~3
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Study Session Letter No. 18
Agenda May 7, 1990
Issue Statement•
Consideration of procedure regarding adding items to the Council
agenda.
Background•
Last fall the City Council directed the Attorney to prepare a
memo summarizing City Code requirements for adding items to the
Council agenda. The attached memo from John Dean addresses those
issues. The conclusion from the Attorney is as follows:
o City Code requires that the agenda for the regular meeting be
-completed by 4:30 on the Thursday preceding a meeting. Matters
of an emergency nature not on the agenda may be considered only
by unanimous vote of those Council Members present.
• The City Code also provides for an opportunity for the Council
to permit members of the public to bring items up to the
Council for consideration. Since the Council Members are also
members of the public it is arguable that items may be added to
the agenda in this fashion.
John Dean concludes that these provisions are inconsistent and
leaves the Council without clear guidance concerning the
appropriateness or-inappropriateness of considering items not
on the agenda. Certain recommendations to clarify this
inconsistency are provided.
Recommended Motion:
1. Establish a pre-meeting deadline by Council policy. Such a
deadline serves a useful purpose, promotes thorough analysis
and documentation of matters to be considered and gives ample
opportunity to the public to be informed on items to be
considered.
2. The guideline should be flexible. At the minimum, matters of
an emergency-nature should be open for consideration. The
Council may also wish to make consideration of matters which
have been through the required review process and which, if
delayed, may. result both in inconvenience to the person and
the matter considered.
3. The policy may not permit last minute additions to agendas of
special meetings because of statutory limitations.
4. The policy should provide guidelines for votes necessary to
add items to the agenda. The current ordinance requires
unanimous consent of members present to place an emergency
matter on the agenda, but only a simple non-majority for non-
emergency matters.
~-5 3 -1
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Certain types of matters cannot be considered on the basis of
requests that they be placed on the agenda. Included would be
such matters as those that would require public hearing,
published notices, or items which need review by Commissions
or Departments prior to Council consideration.
2. Because the ordinance is currently contradictory as to when
matters are appropriate for consideration, it is always the
possibility that the court could interpret the ordinance
differently and invalidate the Council action.
3. An Ad Hoc interpretation of the ordinance could lead to an
erosion of the idea that it is a good idea whenever possible
to adhere to the agenda deadline.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to make any changes in the
policy.
2. The Council could defer this item for discussion at a later
time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discussion of this matter will be presented at the Study Session
on May 7.
Respe tfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP:tlm
APR 0c '90 07:49 HOLMES & GRAVEN
Atlotney~ ~1 Law
RORkRT A. AI.fiOP
RONALD H. MTTY
MARY J. tRENDEN
RostRT C. CARI.fiON
CNRLVTINt2 M. ('MALC
ROeLRT I.. OAVIp~ON
JOHN 1. DGAN
ROiER7 J. DLIK E
MARY G. DOpiNS
JEFFREY ENG
STKFANi[ N. GALPY
DAVID L. GRAVfti
JtNIN R. GRiiN
September 20, 1989
Mr. James D. Prosser
City Manager
City of I~tiehfield
6700 Portland Ave.,. $.
Richfield, MN 55423
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHART6RRD
t70 )Npebllr7 Center, MinneaouU.. MMnesoa lS402
16)2)337-1501
Rtapif~: (H2) 337.9311
WRTTER'S DIRECT DIAL.
337-920?
R.e: Addition of Items to Cozmcil Agenda
Dear Jim:
P.2
~s 3-a
JOHN G. IIDLSCHUR
JA-It.~l ti. NOtIwLs
JOHN R. LAR~ON
WLLI.INGTON N. LAN
CMARLCS L. LLFEYCRE
JOlth M. LEFCVRL. JR.
ROSERT J. LtNDAU.
LAI;RA K. MOLI.ET
OAMLL R. NLI.bN
L-RiARA(..tORTw000
LARRY M. WERTilE1M
/ONNIE L. W1LKINS
You have asked tar my comments concerning the existing process for placing items
on the coune~ agenda; and for my suggestion concerning possible ways that the
process might be altered.
L Existing Process.
The e~dsting process is governed, in large measure, by the provisions of Subsection
205.09, subdivision 2 of the City Code. That provision reads as toIlowa:
8ttbd. 2. Cn letion of agenda: deadline. The agenda for
any regular. meeting shsII be ~eompg.ed an completed by 4:30 p.m,
on ttie Thursday preceding a meeting. Matters of an emergency
nature not on the agenda may be considered bq the council only
upon a unanimous vote of those c~uneil members present. The
council. may by resolution provide for a period of time during each
eouncl meeting when members of the general public may appear
and make comment to the council. The conditions tar and
limitatiotu upon such eornmeni may be determined by co:mdl
resolution. Matters eornmented upon during any such period need
not be regarded as action items at the meetings at which they arc
fntroduced.
AFR 0c '90 07 49 HOLMES Fs GRAVEN
F.3
.~5 3-3
Mr. James D. Prosser
September 20, 1989
Page 2
The confusion in the ordinance is created by the provisions dealing with the right of
members of the general public to raise matters not on the agenda. Presumably,.
council members are also members of the public and have the right to raise such
matters. The ordinance then provides that matters raised by the general public
need not be considered as action items at that meeting. That language suggests,
i~ owever, that such items could be considered as action ite~t-s.
This language is inconsistent with the first part of the subdivision which requires
that items not on the agenda by the deadline (4:30 p.m. of the Thursday preceding
the meeting) may be considered as action items.
This language is inconsistent with the firs! part of the subdivision which requires
that items not on the agenda Dy the deadline (4:30 p.m. of the Thursday preee~ng
the meeting) m~ty be considered only if: i) they are pf an emergency nature, ~d ii)
there is unanimous vote of the counc~ to consider the item.
This inconsistency leaves the council without clear guidance eo~neerning the
appropriateness or inappropriateness of considering items not on the agenda.
Although there is nothing inherently wrong with the eounc~ maidng these decisions
on an ad hoe basis, there are some risks of which the counc:l should be aware.
1. Certain types of matters sirapdy cannot be considered on the basis of a
request that they be placed on the agenda. Included would be matters which
require a public hearing, published notice, and items which need to be
reviewed by commissions or departments prior to eounc:T consideration.
2. Because the ordinance is contradictory as to when matters are appropriate
for consideration, there is always the possibility that a court could interpret
the ordinance differently than the council and invalidate some action.
An ad hoc interpretation of the evidence could lead to an erosion of the idea
thatit~s a good idea, whenever passible, to adhere to an agenda deadline.
II. Modifications.
Should the eoune~ choose to consider adopting a new guideline, severat points are
worthy of consideration.
1. It is obabl a od actice to establish a e-meet! da deadline. 9t:eh
a ea ne serves a use purpose, Promotes t an ya~a and
documentation of matters to be considered, gives ample opportunity to the
publfe to be informed of the-items to be considered.
Z. There should be some ilerilnli in the 'defines. At the very minimum,
matters o an emergency natures open for aogsideration. The
council may also wish to permit consideration of matters which have been
HI''K F7G " 7k7 b ~" ~ J~~ MVLI'It5 7k bKHVtIY
Mr. James D. Prosser
September 20, 1589
Page 3
P.4
55 3-`~
through any required review process and which, it delayed, may result in
inconvenience to the person seeking to have the matter considered.
3. The ooeortunit9 for last minute additions does not
that notice of special meetings ven ~dvanee of the meeting.
The notice moat include a statement on the purpose of the meeting.
4. Votes necssary to add. The guidelines should probably provide for the votes
necessary to add an m to the agenda. The current ordinance is somewhat
illogical in that it requires ~manimovs aonsant of the members present to
place an emergency matter on the agenda, but only a dmplc majority for
non-emergency matters.
3. Poke v. Ordinance. Most cities which seek to control the addition of items
to agcn as do so rough podieies (resolution) rather than by ordinance. I
suspect that the primary motive behind this approach Lies in the faM that
not only can the policy be as tiesible as an ordinance; but it also lacks the
binding effect of an or~nanoe. All of .which, I believe, serves to reinforce
the notion that cities moat take a common sense approach to these matters.
The counc~ and staff must have a good working understanding as to how to
'`"^M deal with these issues. This is probably best accomplished through the
adoptioa of a policy rather than an ordinance.
Respect uIly y ,
J B. Dean
D:rsr
RC160-0O1