Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 1990-038 �++ RESOLUTION NO. qn-3R A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY �"'` OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE ATTACHED RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATIVE TO RUNWAYS 16/34 EAST AND 16/34 WEST AND EXPANSION PLANS AS PROPOSED BY THE DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the impacts of the proposed airport expansion relative to Runways 16/34 East and 16/34 West; and WHEREAS, the City of Grapevine has expressed the concerns of its citizens over the proposed plans for the expansion of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport; and WHEREAS, the City of Grapevine desires to adopt the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Expansion of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport" , as its official response to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Draft Environmental �� Impact Statement. � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS: Section 1 . That the City Council hereby adopts the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Expansion of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport" , as its official response to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Section 2. The City Council hereby supports and endorses the comments and subject matter included in the attached Exhibit "A" . Section 3. That this resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS on this the 13th day of December , 1990 . «�.� � �,, APPROVED: � �..��. �_ Ted R. Ware Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: � Linda Huff City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Chri,stopher Caso City Attorney - ��y� � � � EXHIBIT �A� TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-38 � A full, true and correct copy of the "Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Ex- � pansion of D/FW International Airport is on file in the City Secretary' s ,,.�, O f f ic e. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY � The City of Grapevine, its City Council, staff, consultants and citizens have undertaken an `� intensive and thorough review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed expansion of D/FW Airport. On the basis of this review, we are led to the following unavoidable �� conclusions. � � • The DEIS severely underestimates the noise impacts that would be suffered by the cit�zens of Grapevme. .� • d astic decline in the value of man Gra evine r The Airport expansion would cause a r y p ��� neighborhoods along with an equally severe economic decrease in the business activity supported by those neighborhoods. � • Schools in Grapevine could expect noisier classrooms, a decrease in student and °�" teacher performance, and an increased demand for remedial and other specialized �, services. � • The City of Grapevine and the Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District would suffer both a severe decline in tax revenue and an increased demand for �� services. � • The DEIS does not examine viable alternatives which are obviously more cost effective in meeting the air transport needs for North Central Texas, and which � would promote competition in air fares. P - � • The DEIS fails to prove that the proposed expansion is necessary or even usable, according to the data in the DEIS. � ��* - � �2ia2oo2��ozG.Fxs � Comments on the DEIS for the _ . S-1 Proposed D/FW Ezpansion � � �.. � � � • The DEIS contains so many errors, omissions, misleading statements and , � inconsistencies that it is nearly useless for understanding the impacts of the �� proposed Airport expansion. � .�xr , � • The DEIS fails to fulfill the legal requirements necessary for approval by the FAA. �� The City of Grapevine has a long history of responsible land use planning in regard to D/FW Airport. However, should the expansion go forward as described in the DEIS, the City `� would find itself with extensive areas totally incompatible with the Airport. It would inevitably become a fundamentally different city than it is today. It would become, in fact, a city at r�sk, less � desirable and attractive to families and businesses. � We therefore conclude that before the City can consent to the expansion, the fundamental '„i problems we have noted must be addressed and resolved to the mutual bene�t of all parties � involved. ,(�� I NOISE IMPACTS "�"�" ;� �� The DEIS severely underestimates the noise impacts which would be suffered by the citizens of '�� Grapevine. �� • The DEIS noise projections are based upon flawed assumptions about the aircraft that would use the Airport: � - The DEIS estimates of daily take-offs from Runway 16/34 West is 14 � '� percent lower than the FAA's independent estimate. '� - The DEIS predicts that quieter, Stage III aircraft will be placed in service 20 �� percent faster than the FAA predicts. -� _ . I�� � \na2oa¢\�o2G.Exs ' Comments on the DEIS for the '� S-2 rrw,r� Proposed D/FW Expansion II� ,� � • Even if the suspect DEIS data were correct, the real areas of noise impact would be shorter and much wider than the noise contours shown in the DEIS: � - Dispersion was not taken into account. According to the Airport's ARTS � radar records, aircraft generally do not fly a straight track but disperse around the indicated track. The data shows dispersion to be significant. �� - The DEIS shows no departure turns other than the initial turn from the runway heading. ARTS data do not support this modeling practice and show �'�� turns far earlier than the DEIS would su est. � '� - Final legs for anivals are shown uniformly to be 20 miles long and to contain no downwind legs. Again, ARTS data do not support this assumption. !� �� • The DEIS predicts noise impacts based only upon an averaee day, meaning that half E of the time the noise energy would be less and that half of the time the noise energy "�'° would be worse than predicted. (Because of weather conditions, aircraft takeoff to � the south 75 percent of the time and land from the north 75 percent of the time, further distorting the concept of an averaee day.) � • The DEIS inconectly assumes that maintenance run-ups produce no noise effects. ,� These impacts are particularly intrusive because of their volume, duration, and intensity. � • The L�contours not only are incorrect, they also are deceptive and underestimate � � noise impacts. The new runways are nroposed to be used only one-tenth as often as the existing runways. Because of the way L�is calculated, that means that along � the noise contours for the proposed new runways, each aircraft overIlight will sound � twice as loud as it would along the same noise contours for the existing runways. � �.. � - �, - � �na2ooi��a¢G.Fxs � Comments on the DEIS for the S-3 Proposed D/FW Expansion � � ;,� • Aithough the DEIS only studies noise effects inside the L� contour of 65 dBA, �� studies in other cities show that Grapevine citizens would feel significant noise �� impacts if they live within the L� contour of 60 dBA. �.� '�� • The DEIS anticipates the location of a major UPS cargo hub at D/FW. The noise contours do not include the effects of a new cargo hub,which can be severe because �� of frequent nighttime flights. i� • The city's noise consultants, using the FAA's data, have prepared a map of the Lan contour of 60 dBA. It extends to include most of Grapevine south of Northwest , � Highway and east of Main Street. In other words, everyone living in the central core , of Grapevine will be affected bv direct noise impacts. . �� SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS :� �' The Airport expansion would cause both a devastating depression in property values in many ''�"� �'� Grapevine neighborhoods and an equally severe decline in business activity supported by those ,�� neighborhoods. � • Because of a precipitous decline in property values and consequent changes in the ',� socio-economic character of the presently stable residential neighborhoods, all ` residential and commercial areas in the central core of Grapevine would feel � substantial economic impacts of the proposed Airport expansion. '� • Based upon willingness-to-pay surveys and experience in other cities, our economists estimate that homes in this area can be expected to lose between 17 and 35 percent '� of their value, while a substantial portion of the rest of the City population would �.� see a lesser decline in property value. ',� _ �� �� IT lii �Zia2ooz��o2G.Fxs - Comments on the DEIS for the � S'4 . Proposed D/FW Fxpansion �� � � I� i� � • The area which would be directly affected by airport impacts contains more than 5,000 people -- almost 20 percent of the City's total population -- and a sign�cant portion of Grapevine's single-family housing stock, especially for middle-income �irr families. Income levels in the affected area would decline by a percentage at least �� equal to the property values. ;� • Nevertheless, only very few residences in the affected area would receive substantial mitigation. Acquisition, avigation easements or sales guarantees would be offered to only 859 homes of the total of 1,500 single family homes and 900 multi-family `� homes located in the area which would be directly affected by noise. � • All areas east of Main Street and man areas west of Main Street and north of ( y � Northwest Highway) would be affected by the proposed Sales Guarantee Program ' because of the sudden release into the market of 851 single family homes, at prices ;� substantially less than today's prices. The sale of these homes would lead to a serious deterioration in the market values of all remaining homes in the area, "�`"' particularly since the Sales Guarantee Program divides neighborhoods along �, arbitrary lines. ,� • Families who partictpate in the Sales Guarantee Program would bear a major financial hardship. While the program would provide limited relocation benefits for ,� families who are likely to lose value in their homes, it would not cover the real costs of relocation including increased interest rate costs, some closing costs, and � relocation expenses over $2,000. Other deficiencies include: � - Homeowners would have no right to appeal the D/FW Board's appraisal of their homes. � � . - There is no timetable. The D/FW Board would not be obligated to buy � homes within any specific time period. Thus, financially pressed families � could remain in limbo for years and years. r� - � �2iazoo2\'�o2G.Exs Comments on the DEIS for the _ S-5 Proposed D/FW Fxpansion � � - � � • The entire central core of Grapevine, and many areas north of Northwest Highway ` ,,,��, could become a blighted area. '� � � • Substantial additional losses could be expected outside central Grapevine and �� throughout the entire City because the economic health of the entire City would feel a ripple effect of declining property values and declining family incomes, and the �� City would become less desirable to families and business. � • The political environment of the city would change to match the new demographics. , � • Noise from the Airport expansion would make several parks in the City-- including Hutchins and Cluck Parks --virtually useless. Noise levels would reach almost 100 ',`� dBA -- louder than the inside of a New York City subway train. I_� EDUCATION IMPACTS , �� � Schools in Grapevine could expect substantially noisier classrooms, a decrease in student and �r teacher performance, and a greater demand for remedial and other specialized services. � • Scientific studies establish that students who either live or attend school in areas '.� exposed to high levels of airport noise perform poorer than similar students in , quieter schools. At least two schools in Grapevine could expect to see a decline in � student performance. �� • The influx of a low-income population would likely result in an increased demand for specialized school services; because the school district is classified as a wealthy ',� district, state aid might not compensate for these increased eacpenses. � � I� •�� � �zia2ooz��oZG.Exs Comments on the DEIS for the S-6 Proposed D/FW Fxpansion �'� � � ,� � � � • The School District, like the City, would face an alarming decline in property tax revenue accompanied by an increase in cost of educating Grapevine children. The DEIS has not proposed any compensation for these impacts. � �� • Given the de�iciencies noted in the Noise Impacts section, above, it is likely that additional schools would end up within the L�contour of 65 dBA and be unfit for � educational purposes. `� • Even if the Bear Creek Elementary School were sound insulated,students still would be exposed to disturbing and harmful levels of noise in the gymnasium, poRable ,� classrooms, and on the playground. �� FISCAL AND TAX IMPACTS � The City of Grapevine and the Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District would suffer both ��" a severe decline in tax revenue and an increase in the cost for delivering essential services. � • Reduced property values of homes and rental properties alone would lead to an � annual loss of$182,000 in property tax revenues in the City. � • The replacement of a higher-income population by a lower-income population would � result in an annual loss in retail sales and sales tax. There would be an additional � effect on sales as the quality of the community declines and people choose to shop elsewhere. � � . • Not only would the City and the School District experience a decline in tax revenues, � but they would face an increase in the cost of government services. Each new lower- � income neighborhoods would cost more for the City to serve with essential � government services, including police, fire, and schools. �. -- � - �Ziazoo2��oZG.Exs ' Comments on the DEIS for the �"" S-7 . Proposed D/FW Expansion � � � � � � • The total in lost taxes from homeowners would be over $366,000 annually for the � �► City; the schools would lose an additional$382,000 annually from homeowners and �`� renters. �t,� '�� • The loss of tax revenues could endanger the City's bond rating which would raise the cost of the City's capital improvements program. ;� ALTERNATIVES ,� . The DEIS does not examine viable alternatives to the proposed expansion of D/FW Airport which -� obviously would be more cost effective and would pmmote rnmpetition in air fares. ' � • The DEIS improperly rejects the alternative of using another airport to help meet the demand for air transportation in the Metroplex. Only one major city with ','� multiple airports --Chicago--is more dependent upon one airport than Dallas; and , Chicago is planning to build a third airport. �� � • Plannin a encies in the Metro lex alrea have be n lannin for a new a' ort. g g P �Y � P g uP .�;,r The expansion of D/FW Airport would be, at best, a high-cost temporary measure. � Further, this expansion would divert money from -- and delay -- the needed � construction of a new airport. • Additional service from Love Field would produce additional economic bene�its to � the Metroplex that D/FW cannot offer in terms of lower fares and alternative airline SeN1C@. � • The DEIS arbitrarily rejects alternative lengths and locations for the proposed new '� runways. For example,the new runways could be shorter and located less than 5,000 feet from the existing runways, while still achieving substantially all the projected � bene�its. A closer or shorter runway would produce much less noise impact. ,� ' �� \2ia2oo2�7ozG.Exs � Comments on the DEIS for the �� � S-8 Proposed D/FW Fxpansion � L � � NEED The DEIS fails to prove that proposed expansion is either necessary nor even usable,on the basis � of the data presented. � • Numerous independent studies have shown that consumers pay a 20 percent .� premium for using D/FW. The DEIS fails to figure the cost of this premium either ' for the traveling public or for businesses in North Central Texas. ,� • The DEIS arbitrarily selected a 6-minute delay time as the standard against which ,� the need for the new runways has been judged. This standard is based neither on � defensible criterion nor on e�erience at any other airport. Average delays of 10 � minutes or more are acceptable at many other airports. � • The 6-minute delay standard may have been selected because it is the only delay figure which justi�ies the Airport expansion. If, for example, a 7-minute delay had '� been the criterion, a single air canier runway would satisfy the need; with a 5- ,�, minute delay, even the proposed runways would be inadequate. .�,. . • The DEIS asserts that the purpose of the new runways is to increase the capacity of D/FW during peak-hour IFR(poor weather)conditions. Because IFR conditions �� rarelv coincide with peak hour demand (only a few hours of a few days each year), the investment cannot be justified unless the runways actually would be used at other � times as well. � e .� � � _ �, �2iazoo2��o2G.Exs Comments on the DEIS for the � _ S-9 Proposed D/FW Expansion � � . � • 3.. . � � TECHI�ICAL DEFECTS �� � The DEIS rnntains so many errors, omissions, misleading statements and inrnnsistencies that it is nearl useless for understandin the im acts of the ro osed �A� y g p p p Airport expansion. r� • Single-event noise analysis has not been incorporated into the DEIS, even though ' '� the D/FW Board and the FAA both have promised to do that analysis. Without ` sin g le-event an a lysis, citizens o f Grapevine are deprive d o f a f u ll discussion o f t he environmental impacts of noise. The DEIS does not reveal that parts of Grapevine ��I wo d ul be e�osed to ma�umum noise levels as high as 105 dBA. �`� • The noise contours shown on the noise e osure xp maps do not conespond to the ��� maps of mitigation areas,even though they should be identical. A comparison shows that on the east side, the contours used to determine the mitigation areas have been '� shifted west relative to the contours on the noise exposure maps. On the west side, , there are sunilar shifts to the east. All of these discrepancies would work to the ' advantage of D/FW Airport and to the disadvantage of homeowners. """"'� 'a� �,.� • Inaccurate data has been used, including predictions of the number of operations, 'I� the flight tracks, the number of long distance flights and the type of aircraft. Inconsistencies in these types of data make the noise contours unreliable. ',� • There are numerous inconsistences between the assumptions stated in the DEIS and '� � . the assumptions used in the INM model,the computer program which generated the ..__,..�..,:,..�..� _ _ noise contours: '� � .. - the number of departures and arrivals in the INM model are different from '� those analyzed in the DEIS; � - the flight tracks are different in the INM model and the DEIS; I� �', �. \2iazoo2\7o2G.EXs Comments on the DEIS for the ',� _ _ S-10 Proposed D/FW Expansion `�''� ��.. I� I� � � - the ratio of aircraft operations in the daytime to the nighttime in the INM model does not match the figures in the DEIS; and � - the fleet mix (i.e., the types of aircraft which use the Airport) inexplicably ,� vary between different flight tracks. ;� • The use of average noise contours is misleading since people are affected both by overall noise levels(the L�measure)and by the loudness of individual noise events. '� Since the DEIS predicts that the proposed runways would be used rarely, analysis of single noise events is crucial to understand the disturbance that the Airport would �� cause. � �� LEGAL CONSTRAINTS � The Airport expansion as proposed violates several federal laws which prohibit FAA approval of the plan. � � • Federal law prohibits the construction of either runway,because both runways would , destroy wetlands which legally cannot be destroyed so long as there are reasonable ,� alternatives to the project. � • Because prudent and feasible alternatives to the project exist, and because the expansion would substantially impair the use of several significant local parks, the � � FAA cannot legally approve the expansion. � • After a study by its staff, the City has made a finding that fhe proposal may not be compatible with its land use planning. Consequently,federal law prohibits the FAA � from approving the expansion proposal. � � � : � �ziaiooi��o2G.Fxs " Comments on the DEIS for the 5-11 Proposed D/FW Expansion � . � � � • The FAA has not a�proved the use of four parallel runways simultaneously. �� Without this approval, the new runways would be worthless: they legally could not � be used for their intended purpose. � �..� '� ::::: +� Before the FAA can approve the proposed Airport expansion, the inconsistencies, errors, and misstatements in the DEIS must be corrected and a revised DEIS distributed for public review. ' � The revised DEIS must provide answers to the many fundamental questions which bear upon the � abili of decisionmakers and citizens to understand the im act of the ty p proposed Airport earpansion. ' � The D/FW Board and the FAA further must be able to ensure that the citizens of Grapevine do ,' not bear a disproportionate burden without also receiving a fair share of benefits from an e�anded ' � Airport. /� �� ��', �r I � � � � � . � , � ._ . �� ,!� �Ziazoo2��G.Exs � Comments on the DEIS for the S-12 Proposed D/FW Fxpansion �'�' '� _ . � � �