Citation
An evaluation of land use controls to prevent residential development in high noise impact areas of airport environs

Material Information

Title:
An evaluation of land use controls to prevent residential development in high noise impact areas of airport environs
Creator:
Harrison, Susan
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
127 leaves : charts, forms ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Land use -- Planning ( lcsh )
Airport noise ( lcsh )
Airport noise ( fast )
Land use -- Planning ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 117-119).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Architecture and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Susan Harrison.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
16734169 ( OCLC )
ocm16734169
Classification:
LD1190.A78 1987 .H36 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
AN EVALUATION OF LAND USE CONTROLS TO PREVENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH NOISE IMPACT AREAS OF AIRPORT ENVIRONS
by
Susan Harrison
May, 1987
• i *.« y.


AN EVALUATION OF LAND USE CONTROLS
TO PREVENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH NOISE IMPACT AREAS OF AIRPORT ENVIRONS by
Susan Harrison
B. S., Metropolitan State College, 1983
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the College of Architecture and Planning University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Planning and Community Development
1987


This thesis for the Master of Planning and Community
Development degree by Susan J. Harrison has been approved for the College of Architecture and Planning
by
Thomas A. Clark
Herbert H. Smith
Date


ABSTRACT
Harrison, Susan J. (Masters of Planning and Community Development)
An Evaluation of Land Use Controls To Prevent Residentia Development in High Noise Impact Areas of Airport Environs
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Thomas A. Clark
Old and new residential neighborhoods are affected by aircraft overflight noise to the extent that complaints force airport authorities to take expensive reactive steps to mitigate the adverse impacts. Restric tive zoning has been commonly used to avoid development of noise sensitive land uses, but has not proven to be effective enough. Proactive land use planning and identification of effective means to control land uses are needed. None of the current literature found approached the control of land use from the standpoint of which method(s) meet an array of diverse community goals.
There are a number of legal, economic, airport, and political issues regarding public control of land use from which the thesis develops a series of community goals. It is the purpose of the thesis to use these goals to evaluate various controls for long-term effectiveness in mitigating adverse aircraft noise impacts.
The City of Denver is facing a dilemma of construct ing a new airport while substantially reducing current


11
levels of noise-affected residences. This study utilizes the Delphi technique to focus on Denver area community attitudes toward relative importance of each goal area. Short- and long-run evaluation applies the importance scores to academic analysis of the ability for each land use control to meet the goals. Data from existing land use control programs at major American airports are used in the analysis to the extent available.
Recommendations are first made for the most effective land use controls in implementing a comprehensive environs land use plan for Denver's proposed airport. These are followed by general policy recommendations in implementing land use plans surrounding any airport where vast amounts of vacant land are available.
The evaluation found Avigation Easements and Purchase of Development Rights to be the most effective land use controls for both the short- and long-run in the Denver situation. These both ranked highest in general application as well.
Restrictive Zoning rated sixth in evaluation of the eight land use controls. The reasons for this are that zoning does not meet the goals of permanence, multi-jurisdictional cooperation, and enforceability by an airport authority.


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..................1
1.1 Introduction..............................1
1.2 Background of Major Issues................5
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGY............20
2.1 Problem Statement........................20
2.2 Methodology..............................23
2.3 Case Studies.............................29
2.4 Evaluation Method........................31
2.5 Goals Addressed by Land Use Control
Strategies..............................34
2.6 Constraints of the Study.................35
III. LITERATURE SURVEY.............................36
3.1 Federal Regulations......................36
3.2 State Regulations........................43
3.3 Local Strategies.........................45
IV. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE
CONTROL STRATEGIES........................50
4.1 General Analysis.........................50
4.2 Results of Case Studies Questionnaire...59
4.3 General Analysis of Land Use Control.... 62
4.4 Application of Delphi Polling............78
V. EVALUATION AND APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO
DENVER'S PROPOSED AIRPORT..................8 7


11
5.1 The Evaluation Process...................87
5.2 Evaluation of the Short-run..............94
5.3 Evaluation of the Long-run...............96
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.........................9 9
6.1 Restatement of the Problem...............99
6.2 Alternative Strategies..................100
6.3 Community Goal Areas....................105
6.4 The Best Approach for Denver............105
6.5 General Policy Recommendations..........108
6.6 Defense of Original Thesis Statement...Ill
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................117
APPENDIX
A. Airport Land Use Controls Questionnaire.120
B. Impact Categories Rating Sheet and
Description of Land Use Controls........125


TABLES
Table
4.1 General Analysis of Ability for Controls
to Meet Goals - Short Run.......................52
4.2 General Analysis of Ability for Controls
to Meet Goals - Long Run........................53
4.3 Summary of Questionnaire Results................60
4.4 Delphi Poll Mailing.............................80
4.5 Delphi Poll Returns.............................80
4.6 Results of Delphi Poll..........................81
5.1 Differential Analysis of Controls to Meet
Goals - Short Run...............................8 8
5.2 Differential Analysis of Controls to Meet
Goals - Long Run................................89
6.1 General Analysis and Ranking of Ability for
Controls to Meet Goals - Short Run..............109
6.2 General Analysis and Ranking of Ability for
Controls to Meet Goals - Long Run...........
110


FIGURES
Figure
4.1 Delphi Poll Results...............................82
5.1 Effectiveness Ranking.............................92


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
Airport authorities across the United States are spending millions of dollars to mitigate negative noise impacts on surrounding existing residential neighborhoods. These expenditures include property acquisition, relocation of households, and noise insulation of homes. Many of these neighborhoods were built when the airports were small and before the use of jet technology which necessitated expansion of the airport and encroachment on the neighborhoods. Others have been built in close proximity to new jet serving airports in seeming disregard for aircraft noise impacts.
An example of apparent disregard for aircraft noise impacts is recent construction of homes directly below the final landing approach to Denver's Stapleton International Airport east-west runway. These homes are being built where residents will be subjected to high levels of aircraft noise at the same time that money is being spent to mitigate high noise impacts in existing residential neighborhoods surrounding the airport.


2
This is a paradox which raises two questions. The first is, why do new developments which are incompatible to airport operations continue to be approved, not only in the Stapleton vicinity, but near airports across the United States?
Three possible answers come to mind. It may be due to real estate economics directing residential development down the path of least resistance, encouraging construction of homes on inexpensive land despite what the future social and environmental costs will be due to noise pollution. It may be due to decision makers within the political structure giving in to pressure from land developers for the sake of improving the tax base. Or it may be due to ignorance of the consumers who buy homes near an airport only to discover later how disruptive the aircraft overflight noise can be to their lifestyles.
The answer to this first question is undoubtedly a combination of all three possibilities.
The second question raised is what can be done to avoid making the same mistakes in development of incompatible land uses in airport environs in the future? The answers to the first question provide insight into the means by which to help solve the problem. It is postulated that any past efforts at controlling the type of development in airport environs have failed due to economic and political pressures to develop on the urban fringe where the most financially viable land market


3
exists. What is needed are land use controls with enough strength and permanence to withstand long-term political and development pressures in the interest of preserving the community quality of life and the public investment in the airport facility. Pressure from surrounding built-out residential neighborhoods to alleviate aircraft overflight noise can severely restrict the number of flights in and out of an airport and reduce its effectiveness in transportation and commerce.
Finding the best solution to any land use conflict problem is usually very complex and involves years of testing before all implications are identified. Problem solving of this sort must be done in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, while protecting the investment in airports and their ability to operate and be economic stimulators for the areas they serve. A solution which simply removes the possibility of development through regulation can be very unpopular politically and have far-reaching adverse economic effects or legal fairness ramifications for private property owners. On the other hand, a solution which is very popular politically may be easily changed as politicians change and, therefore, not be a permanent solution.
With the City of Denver in the process of planning a new international airport, there is tremendous opportunity to provide a model in planning comprehensively for compatible land uses in airport environs before real


4
pressure for surrounding development begins. Denver and other involved jurisdictions are currently undertaking such comprehensive long-range land use planning in a unique display of cooperation. However, without practical and effective land use controls with which to implement the land use plan, even the best of plans may fail due to economic and political pressures.
A literature search was conducted which revealed no work having been done in specifically evaluating possible land use controls for effectiveness in solving the long term problem. Some studies on airport siting and compatible land use issues refer only to the need for land use controls and suggest some as possibilities, but do not evaluate them in any respect. Other studies treat the airport noise and land use incompatibility problem from the reactive angle by evaluating techniques for abatement of existing noise impacts on existing residential neighborhoods. This thesis will treat the problem from a proactive planning standpoint by studying land use controls as a means of eliminating the possibility of incompatible land uses developing where aircraft noise is projected to exceed desirable levels.
Examples used to illustrate points made in the thesis are primarily from the Denver airport situation. While some examples come from other airports, these airports are chiefly used as case studies of their land use


5
control situations for the purpose of gathering primary comparative data for analysis and evaluation.
1.2 Background of Major Issues
Development of a public facility with the tremendous impact on the community and region that an airport has raises uncountable issues. Described below are the primary issues involved in airport development which create the need for improved land use controls due to high noise impacts, or are raised as a result of land use control changes. It is important that each of these issues is addressed in making recommendations for public policy decisions regarding land use.
1.2.1 The Nature of Noise Effects
It is not an intent of this thesis to study noise per se. A brief explanation of the complex nature of noise effect is adequate to understand the noise issue of airport land use incompatibility.
Noise effect in general is composed of three elements: loudness, length, and impact. The currently
accepted method of measuring noise levels produced by airport operations is the LDN, or Day/Night Average Level. This measures not only loudness, but also the length of noise, and expresses the results as levels of impact using contour lines.^
"''The LDN is recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency as a standard for measurement of noise gener-


6
A complication to the measurement of noise effects is the difference in people and their tolerance of noise. Environment is another complication. Regular background noise of an urbanized area will reduce the impact of aircraft noise, whereas the quiet of a rural town or farm will accentuate the noise impact. According to a study completed for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the average noise level of suburban residential neighborhoods is comparable to the 50 LDN contour, noisy urban
residential areas to 70 LDN, and rural areas 30 to 35
2 . . . LDN . Differences m lifestyles, annoyance levels, mitigation, economic importance of the airport, and the perceived responsiveness to noise complaints by the airport make any definition of compatibility subjective for the individual and for any community.
Expression of noise using the LDN attempts to incorporate this subjectiveness. By relating LDN contours to people's expected response to certain noise levels, the acceptability of noise exposure can be evaluated.
ated from aircraft flight. The measurement technique is used for the purpose of determining the highest noise impact areas surrounding airports. Specifically, the LDN is a measure of the noise environment at a prescribed point over a 24-hour period, with a penalty given to sound which occurs in the normally quieter hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. It predicts, with a single number rating, the cumulative aircraft noise in the airport's environs. The measurements are an annual average, and do not reflect single noise events such as occur when aircraft must be diverted for a short time to a non-preferred approach path due to weather conditions.
2
Larry W. Canter, Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw-Hill, 1977, p. 127.


7
According to the Federal Aviation Administration and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, areas within LDN contours of 65 or greater are considered incompatible with residential uses and would be expected to generate a high incidence of complaint"^. These are referred to in this thesis as "high noise impact areas".
The study of noise effects is a rapidly changing field and improvements in measuring noise are becoming more meaningful in how people perceive the impact. Time Above Analysis is a method now felt by many experts to be more accurate than the LDN contours approach. Time Above Analysis refers to how much total time during a 24-hour period a residence is exposed to noise over a certain decibel. Residents have expressed that this more accurately reflects the impact than LDN's, which are an annual average of events over certain decibels and do not
4
consider single events of high decibel aircraft noise .
Improvements in aircraft technology to lessen the noise impact could reduce the restrictions on land uses in the future. With quieter engines and steeper ascents and descents possible, area within the LDN contours of 65 or greater would be reduced. This would open up more low 3 4
3
Denver Regional Council of Governments, Southwest General Aviation Airport Site Selection/Master Plan/EIAR, July, 1979, p. 73.
4
Skip Spensley, Director, Denver's New Airport Development Office, telephone conversation, May 5, 1987.


8
impact noise acreage for land uses previously incompatible with that location.
1.2.2 Incompatible Land Uses Due to Aircraft Noise
Noise pollution is one of the most controversial effects connected with airport operations. The greatest impact of noise pollution is to residential land uses and related uses such as parks, schools, and libraries. When residential development has been allowed to occur in high noise impact areas surrounding airports, it is only a matter of time before the complaints and law suits directed at disruptive noise from takeoffs and landings begin to adversely affect airport operations. A study has shown that "five to seven million people are affected by airplane overflight noise in the United States".5
Denver's Stapleton International Airport is illustrative of many airport operation/land use conflicts occurring across the United States. The problem has become very expensive as residential uses have been allowed to develop around the airport, the airport has grown in size, and larger, noisier airplanes have come into common use since its original construction in the 1930's.
5Richard F. Veazey, Chairman of DRCOG Aviation Technical Advisory Committee, Introductory Speech to DRCOG Airport Land Use Workshop, October 20, 1986.


9
1.2.3 Airport Operation and Past Noise Litigation
An analysis of legal precedents in airport noise litigation is important in selecting land use controls aimed at solving the noise impact problem. In the 1962 landmark case of Griggs v. County of Allegheny [(369 U.S. 84 (1962)], the Supreme Court placed the burden of liability for airport noise on airport proprietors. It was determined that property is "taken" for public use as a result of airport noise, and the airport proprietors must compensate the property owner. The proprietor is liable because it is responsible for airport design and purchasing of land and air easements necessary to prevent airport noise damage. Other cases held that when "...flights must be so low and so frequent that they cause a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land,...and damage must be substantial." [United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)], and that physical invasion of the property's airspace was not necessary to constitute a "taking" [Aaron v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal. App. 3d 471, 115 Cal. Rptr. 162 (1974), cert, denied, 419 U.S. 1122 (1975)].6
With liability to airport proprietors established through litigation, airport owners have great incentive to solve the noise/land use incompatibility problem. A lawsuit filed by Park Hill neighborhood residents in 1981
6Bell, Robert B., Bell, Lisa M., "Airport Noise: Legal Developments and Economic Alternatives", Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 8 #4, 1980 pp. 614, 616, 617.


10
against the City and County of Denver in response to adverse noise impacts resulted in an agreement whereby Denver would strive to alleviate noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. The steps to be taken by Denver include a noise mitigation study and policy, and to close Stapleton International Airport by the year 2000, locating a new airport "far removed from residential communities inhabited by the plaintiffs". In implementing the noise mitigation policy, use of runways is modified, federally accepted noise level restrictions for aircraft monitored, and a Noise Complaint Office created"^. Lawsuits from surrounding property owners and resulting restrictions placed on operation of the airport, can be avoided through proper planning of new airports for future expansion and land use controls.
1.2.4 Economic Issues
Local and state economic development. One may ask, why build a new airport near urban development and potentially expand the noise problem to affect more residences? It is important to any city which desires to expand its economic growth base that it have an efficient and adequate airport which is easily accessible to the city. Many jobs rely on airport operations and spinoffs . 7
7Civil Action No. 81-CV-2729, District Court, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, Amended Stipulation for Dismissal and Order, Judgment, and Decree, September 19, 1985, pp. 1-5.


11
Using Denver as an example, airport spin-offs translated into $3.1 billion of business revenue, $1 billion of personal income, and $114 million of state and local taxes for Colorado in 1985. Nine percent or 91,000 Colorado residents' jobs were related to passenger and
g
air cargo activity at Stapleton .
It is important to economic development of the Denver metropolitan region to be able to expand its airport operations. Because of its unique geographical location, it is positioned as a potential central collection point for the United States, and for the world as well. Denver is located equidistant between the Pacific Rim countries and the European continent. A larger airport is needed if Denver wants to take advantage of nonstop flights to and from those points. A world class airport of this sort would change the image of Denver, increasing economic and cultural opportunities. If the function of the Denver airport is constrained by surrounding incompatible land uses or inability to grow, other airports such as Kansas City and Salt Lake City are
waiting in line to take Denver's place in the interna-
9
tional air industry .
g
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. and Browne, Bortz and Coddington, The Regional Economic Impact of Stapleton International Airport and Future Airport Development, The Colorado Forum, Sept. 9, 1986, p. 4, 8.
9
Frank Gray, Denver New Airport Development Office, presentation to the Denver Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, October 24, 1986.


12
Supply of developable land and property values. A balanced real estate market will be disrupted by public policy and location of a major public facility such as an airport. Public policy in controlling use of land has been shown to affect the supply of land for different uses, and, following elementary economic theory of supply and demand, affecting the sales value. As restrictions are placed on a parcel of land eliminating the possibility of residential development, the supply-of residential land is reduced, and its value increases. In the same way, if more land is made available for commercial and industrial uses, the value of this land decreases.
The decision to build a public transportation facility will unmistakably have a positive effect on the value of parcels depending on the opportunity for development for certain uses. Due to future increased accessibility, land in the vicinity of a proposed airport increases in value each time it changes owners in a speculative market.
1.2.5 The Legal/Fairness Issue
While some individual property owners may benefit from value increases in their land, others may suffer from value decreases. It has been postulated that the overall effect is not destruction of land values, but merely a shifting of land values from one parcel to another. While property owners don't complain when they can benefit from increased property values due to the


13
location of a new airport, they will complain loudly if they perceive their property's value declining. Any public action involving land use must be scrutinized for potential litigation for diminished private property values.
Just as presence of an airport can increase surrounding property values because of enhanced access, it can likewise decrease property values due to negative impacts such as aircraft overflight noise. This is most true for developed neighborhoods where air traffic has increased since construction of homes.
Because of the positive effect land use controls impose on some properties and their negative effect on other properties, it has been proposed that those reaping profits due to the public action should redistribute some of this "windfall" to those less fortunate suffering "wipeout" due to the public action.
1.2.6 Direction of Growth and Population Pressures
Major new airports have been found to be catalysts for regional economic growth which brings residential development with it^®. Major business centers, mixed use developments, and open space/recreational facilities develop in close proximity to airports within what is
°Gennifer Sussman and Frank Gray, Implications of the Construction of Major New Airport Facilities for Economic Development in the Metro Denver Region, Denver New Airport Development Office, September, 1986, p. 1.


14
called the "airport influence area"11 12. Development within the influence area tends to reverse the typical pattern of lower density residential housing preceding commercial and industrial development on urban fringes. This reversal is due to "zoning in the airport environs and the type of demand created immediately by the airport". Initial development is usually industrial and
office parks or mixed commercial and residential use 12
developments . An employment base created by the airport itself and support service sector spinoffs creates a demand for residential development in close proximity.
Besides the economic attraction for residential development, there are characteristics of the airport locale itself which attract residential and commercial development. Airports must be located on relatively flat
topography and will bring infrastructure improvements
13
into previously raw land . Since the cost of development is less on flat topography with existing infrastructure, commercial and residential development will be attracted to it.
Denver metropolitan area growth has historically been primarily to the northwest, southwest, and south-
11The airport influence area is defined as "that area where commercial land uses, development patterns and real estate markets are significantly affected by the presence of" an airport (Brown, Bortz and Coddington, p. 4) .
12
Sussman, Gray, p. 13.
"^Ibid, p. 6.


15
east. Planners feel the stage is set and the time is right for a major growth pattern to develop toward the northeast quadrant where the new airport is planned. The Denver Regional Council of Governments projects that one of the fastest-growing populations will center in northeastern Adams County by the year 2010 as big gains in
14
employment are seen surrounding the new airport
Activity proving the theory of the airport as a growth catalyst is reported taking place in the case of the City of Aurora, a city adjacent to Denver. Pending final approval on the new airport, Aurora annexed 11,800 acres on the east side of the proposed airport in December, 1986^, and its Planning Commission had approved a mixed use zoning for the acreage including 25,000 residences and 86 million square feet of commercial and industrial projects by mid-January, 1987^.
While speculative buying and annexations occur before an airport is built, it has been shown that actual development takes years or decades to occur. This is due to the length of the "ripening process" of land on or near the urban fringe related to proximity to airports or other growth catalysts. While land lies vacant waiting
14
Joni H. Blackman, "City's Future Rosy, New Study Predicts", Denver Post, Oct. 8, 1986, p. IB, 2B.
â– ^Bill McBean, "11,800-acre Aurora Annexation Biggest Yet", Denver Post, Dec. 9, 1986, p. IB.
16Bill McBean, "Aurora OKs Mixed-Use Zoning for Land East of the New Airport", Denver Post, January 15, 1987, p. IB.


16
for development and a population base to reach it, any land use controls which may have been imposed upon it when the airport opened could be removed during the passage of years. Land use controls must be examined for their permanence for this reason.
1.2.7 Political Issues
Federal level. The Federal government encourages development of land use compatibility surrounding airports as a means of preserving the operational capacity of the airport. By planning ahead for compatible land use in each airport's environs, the safest and most efficient flight paths can be designed so as to not modify or disrupt operations to a great extent. The Federal Aviation Administration strives for consistent flight regulations airport to airport for clarity and the convenience of those airlines landing and taking off at numerous airports. By treating the problem on the ground with land use planning as influenced by flight paths, blanket flight regulations can be developed which fit the conditions of most airports rather than developing specific regulations for each airport.
State level. State governments are interested in the ability of an international airport to operate to its fullest capacity, because in so doing, the economy of the
entire state is enhanced.


17
States do not generally get directly involved with land use decisions, because those are delegated to local jurisdictions. There are laws in some states which return various degrees of power in land use control decisions back to the state in cases where a large development has implications for more than one jurisdiction. An area surrounding a development can be declared "an area of statewide concern" by the state legislature, the governor and cabinet, or specially appointed land use commissions. Airports fall into this category of creating potential statewide concern. These political groups have review powers as well as varying degrees of input into the pattern of private development planned around an airport, which are capable of overriding local land development control.
Local level multi-jurisdictional. Development of a new international airport involves a great many square miles of land. Because of this, the airport proper, spin-off development, and especially aircraft noise impacts will cross through numerous jurisdictions. Goals for airport spin-off economic development and minimization of noise impacts affecting each particular jurisdiction will be diverse and competitive. This situation presents a great challenge and opportunity for cooperative comprehensive land use planning where benefits can be maximized and negative impacts minimized for all jurisdictions. It presents a larger challenge for


18
consistent enforcement of land use controls used to implement comprehensive planning.
The kinds of land use control powers delegated by states to local governments vary from state to state, and may limit the types of controls a local government may exercise. Among alternative land use controls available, those which an airport operator has authority to exercise are fee simple acquisition of noise impacted land, purchase of development rights, and avigation easements. Generally speaking, tools such as zoning, transfer of development rights, building codes, and tax incentives can only be implemented by local jurisdictions.
1.2.8 Airport Site Selection and Runway Configuration
Airport site selection is a lengthy evaluative process with regional scope incorporating numerous physical, environmental, financial, and urban interrelationships factors. If land use patterns are laid out first, flights and the noise they produce cannot be easily directed away from them. While recent noise mitigation plans often include an adjustment of flight paths and rates of descent and ascent, there are limits to the amount of adjustments which can be made due to safety considerations. This thesis assumes that airport site selection has thoroughly considered the noise pollution factor in relation to urban development, and a site is chosen which presents opportunity for developing land uses which are noise compatible to the airport.


19
Once the airport site is selected, configuration of runways can be determined. Among the factors entering into runway configuration analysis are prevailing weather patterns and the degree and type of urban development existing in the airport environs. The angle of descent and ascent of flight paths (or elevation of flight activity) are governed by weather patterns and by aircraft design.
The FAA reports that the majority of an airport's capacity constraints are a result of local operating restrictions implemented by airport operators, rather than a lack of runways and taxiways1^. To avoid unnecessary flight restrictions in response to noise complaints, which reduce the capacity of an airport to operate most efficiently, delineation of compatible land use patterns should be secondary to runway and flight path determinations. This ideal would be possible if the proposed airport were surrounded by plenty of vacant land where urbanization would not be a factor in determining flight paths.
^American Association of Airport Executives, "Aviation News Briefs", Airport Report Newsletter, Alexandria, Va., Vol. XXXIII No. 5, March 1, 1987.


CHAPTER II
PROBLEM STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGY
2,1 Problem Statement
A high incidence of discomfort and complaint by surrounding residents in response to aircraft overflight noise is present at many existing airports across the United States. Pressure in the form of litigation from residents threatens the operational capacity of these airports. It is expensive to correct the problem once it develops. Without a noise mitigation plan in place in Denver, it was estimated that in 1982 a total of 12,400 housing units and 34,300 people were exposed to noise within the 65 LDN contours of Stapleton International Airport. By modifying the preferential runway system and departure routings, the number of people affected within both noise contours decreased by 27%. The 9,060 homes remaining within contours over 65 LDN are candidates for improved noise insulation at a cost of $6,000 per unit or a total cost of $54,360,000. Housing units remaining within noise contours greater than 75 LDN (470 units) are


21
candidates for property acquisition and relocation by the City of Denver at a total cost of $35,000,000^.
In order to prevent continued residential development in high noise impact areas of various airports, traditional Euclidean zoning has commonly been used in the past. The reason for its popularity is that it requires no monetary investment and, therefore, is the most inexpensive land use tool for this purpose. Zoning has not proven itself as an effective means of restricting residential development, however. Because zoning is initiated by political decision-making bodies, it is subject to change as individual decision makers change over time, or as economic goals of the jurisdiction change. It is estimated that approximately 18,000 people now live within the 65 LDN contour of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport where "iron clad" multi-jurisdictional agreements prohibited residential development as initially dictated by the comprehensive plan for the airport environs.
Many existing airports have developed noise mitigation plans in an attempt to reduce noise impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. In situations where neighborhoods developed years ago around relatively small airports according to today's standards, and airport operations have since expanded, reactive mitigation plans
1Harris, Miller, Miller, and Hanson, Inc., Final Noise Report and Noise Mitigation Plan for Stapleton International Airport, March, 1984, pp. 21, 22, 24, 26.


22
are the best solution. Because of the high costs involved in implementing these plans, however, reactive methods should not be depended on in the future.
Master plans for new airports which are designed to be proactive to the problem of noise incompatible land uses do not specifically identify how to control land use in carrying out the plans. With planning for compatible land uses must come the foresight of establishing the means by which to implement plans. Without a choice of thoroughly evaluated practical land use control tools, the best of plans may fail due to economic and political pressures.
It is the purpose of this thesis to evaluate the political, economic, and legal implications of various proactive land use control strategies. In the thesis, land use controls with the most potential for preventing residential development in high noise impact areas of airport environs will be identified. The identified controls will be evaluated for their political, economic, and legal implications and past success rates as permanent controls using a cost-effectiveness type of framework. Input from citizens, developers, planners, and elected officials at the Denver situation will be solicited and incorporated into the evaluation framework for demonstration of the effectiveness in a specific problem location. Finally, broader policy recommenda-


23
tions for use of selected land use controls in planning of any airport will be stated.
2.2 Methodology
2.2.1 Thesis Hypotheses
There are two hypotheses set out to be proven in the thesis:
1) Traditional zoning is not the most effective land use control tool for preventing residential development in the high noise impact areas of airports.
2) Proactive land use control tools which are more effective than traditional Euclidean zoning can be implemented to prevent residential development in the high noise impact environs of airports.
2.2.2 Assumptions of the Study
This study is conducted under some basic assumptions regarding the aircraft noise issue:
1) Aircraft overflight noise creates a negative impact for residential neighborhoods.
While the negative impact can be substantiated by statistics as affecting some people, it must be assumed that the complaint rate from these people expresses a problem which creates a public welfare issue of sufficient dimensions to warrant major efforts at finding solutions.
2) Airport authorities are serious about working with communities to solve aircraft noise problems. 3
3) The community should have input into finding amicable solutions to aircraft noise problems .


24
2.2.3 Delphi Technique
The Delphi technique, developed by Norman C. Dalkey for the Rand Corporation, will be used to poll experts for the political judgment element of the analysis.
These will be expressed as constituent Group Importance Scores. The purpose of the poll will be to determine a merged group attitude toward perceived benefits and trade-offs of each land use control strategy based on economic and past effectiveness information, and knowledge of constituents' feelings.
2.2.3.a Characteristics of the Delphi Method. A major characteristic of the Delphi method is that it strives to find "better" rather than "right" or "best" solutions under the "n-heads" rule. This says that in dealing with an issue where the best information or data available is the judgments of a group of knowledgeable individuals with diverse backgrounds or interests, their
cumulative response is more accurate than the response of
2
only one individual .
The Delphi method is further based on the belief that humans have the ability to put numerical judgments of relative importance on life values. These numbers are very useful for the purpose of quantifying the intangible relative intensity of human perceptions into data for
2
Norman C. Dalkey, Daniel L. Rourke, Ralph Lewis, and David Snyder, Studies in the Quality of Life - Delphi and Decision Making, Lexington Books, Lexington, Ky.,
1972, p. 4.


25
analysis. Experiments testing the validity of the method have convinced Dalkey that these subjective estimates approach physical measurement in both precision and reliability.
2.2.3.b Criteria for Selection of Delphi. The Delphi method was chosen under the criteria of providing anonymity, controlled feedback, and a statistical group response. It provides a means of focusing on the intangible value judgments of a large diverse population through systematic group judgment of issues, which cannot be decided solely on the basis of hard data or theories. As the time frame and funding for this study were limited, the Delphi method met the additional criteria of providing a quick and inexpensive method of estimating these group judgments.
Anonymity. Anonymity of responses is necessary in
order to discourage the effect of dominant individuals on
other respondents. Controlled experiments performed by
Dalkey in developing the Delphi technique found that the
median of judgments made anonymously and independently is
more accurate than consensus formed in a face-to-face
meeting, apparently due to the effect of dominant indi-
3
viduals in a group discussion .
^Donald M. McAllister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning - Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic, and Political Trade-offs, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1980,
p.218.


26
Impact Category Rating Sheets were distributed to people knowledgeable on the issue of airport noise and incompatible land use. This is the New Airport Citizen Advisory Committee for Denver consisting of representatives from the number of jurisdictions affected by development of a new airport. The Rating Sheets were mailed to each member individually with ground rules that they must be answered without consultation with other members. They were then mailed back by each individual to the researcher.
Controlled feedback. In order to reduce inaccuracies of cumulative group response, two rounds of polling are encouraged by Dalkey. According to his controlled
experiments, accuracy of responses improves with itera-• 4
tion . Divergent responses should converge to a more accurately estimated set of data as each member is given the results of how the group as a whole answered the questions4 5.
On the other hand, Donald M. Mcallister suggests that in applications where weighted value judgments are being estimated, one iteration can be sufficient. He states that previous research has not been able to verify that the correctness of value judgments has increased
4
Dalkey, Rourke, Lewis, and Snyder, Studies m the Quality of Life - Delphi and Decision Making, Lexington Books, Lexington, Ky., 1972, p. 22.
5Ibid. p. 35.


27
C
through repeated polling with controlled feedback . Only one iteration was used in this research application.
Statistical definition of group response. By defining the numerical responses of each member within a statistical framework, two useful groups of data emerge.
The first is the combined group response of each impact expressed as a median value which makes it possible to use the responses in a Cost-effectiveness evaluation.
The second group is the degree of spread of individual responses retained through graphs or expressed in standard deviations which, according to Dalkey, reduce the effect of group pressure to conform.
2.2.3c Weaknesses of the Delphi method. Critics of the Delphi method charge that the Delphi results are untrustworthy because questions used are not objectively designed or tested for validity. It is therefore not recommended for rigorous scientific research where absolute values must be obtained. The critics do admit, however, that the method does have value as a guidance tool in evaluation and decision making where techniques for exact measurement of study elements such as human values have not been accomplished^.
g
Mcallister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning -Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic, and Political Trade-offs, pp. 218. 219.
7
Harold Sackman, Delphi Critique - Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1975, p. 3.


28
Another weakness is in questioning a representative of a large number of people. Responses are intended to incorporate constituent opinions as perceived by a representative. This carries the unavoidable danger of misinterpretation of opinions and bias on the part of the representative. In addition, the representative probably will express the dominant opinion or a compromised opinion as not all opinions can be expressed in one individual's final response.
These weakness are not viewed as a problem in arriving at accurate data in this study because the attributes of the method outweigh the weaknesses. It should be understood that any study dealing with the human element cannot be exact. The human judgment value measurements derived from this study are expected to be accurate estimations of conditions at the time and for the location. These results would be expected to vary, however, if different people (or even the same people) were tested at a different location or at a different time due, to the uncertainties of human nature and differing locational conditions .
The Delphi method does provide a means of focusing on the vital political and intangible elements in this study where exact measurements are not possible. Without means of consulting users of the system, the researcher would be forced to interject values not necessarily representative of the users.


29
2.3 Case Studies
In order to gather information on the effectiveness of land use controls in preventing residential development in high noise impact areas of airports, various existing airports which have made past attempts in this respect were selected for study. A questionnaire was sent to professionals involved with development of the land uses in the environs of these airport as a means of gathering information for analysis.
2.3.1 Criteria for Selection of Case Studies
Criteria for selection of airports dealt with similarity of the airport frequency of flight activity to the new airport planned for Denver and their use of innovative land use controls. An attempt was made to first select airports with a similar level of air transport activity, size, and function for ease of comparison.
This was simplified as selection progressed, however. As methods of projecting activity into the future and those future dates may vary from one airport to another, current activity figures were used. In addition, size became less important in order to meet a second criterion that the airport has on record the application of innovative land use controls.
By consulting a recent survey on noise control strategies published by the Federal Aviation Administration, four airports were selected which met both criteria


30
of similar size or function and use of innovative land use controls. One other was selected for its use of a single unique land use control rather than for its similarity in size or flight activity to Denver's new airport.
2.3.2 Criteria for Selection of Questions Asked
A four-page questionnaire was mailed to a total of nine professionals involved in development of land uses surrounding each area. The professionals selected are from the economic development and urban planning fields and are knowledgeable in the use and implications of the land use control tools implemented surrounding their respective airports.
The first group of criteria used in designing the questionnaire was aimed at encouraging timely and accurate responses. The questionnaire needed to be as short and concise as possible. Another criterion was that it offer choices for quick selection of answers and allow estimations, reducing the necessity for lengthy research by the respondent.
The second group of criteria dealt with content of information being sought. The questionnaire needed to address the following aspects of the land use control tools:
1) definition of the land use control tool
2) long-term effectiveness
3) economic implications
4) reasons for success/failure
5) costs of implementation


31
A final criterion was that the answers be in a form which would allow standardization for input into a cost-effectiveness framework.
2.4 Evaluation Method
An adaptation of cost-effectiveness evaluation was used to evaluate data gathered from the questionnaire in the case studies, literature, and Delphi polling. The actual method used here will be called Differential Analysis and is outlined in Section 2.4.1. It borrows many of the attributes of cost-effectiveness evaluation.
2.4.1 Criteria for Selection of Evaluation Method
The function of an evaluation process is to evaluate proposed public actions based on the consequences to users of end results. If implications of each proposed strategy is reported in the evaluation, decision makers can make informed judgments in final selection of a strategy. To assure that the evaluation method has the ability to evaluate strategies of controlling land use based on the consequences for end results, the following criteria must be met:
Reflecting the Values of the Users. Donald McAllister emphasizes the importance of reflecting the values of all people affected by a proposed public action within the evaluation. He encourages the use of citizen


32
participation in being certain these values are addressed, and that a sufficient number of qualified persons be consulted for judgments to assure accurate
o
responses . This criteria is fulfilled by incorporating results of the Delphi polling of the Denver New Airport Citizens Advisory Committee to incorporate diverse political goals regarding the land use control strategies.
Standardization of Data. Both intangible information and easily quantified data must be placed within a common scale of measurement for comparison of all elements of the analysis. The cost-effectiveness method as proposed by Dr. Tom Clark of the University of Colorado at Denver provides for applying standardized quantification and weighting of less tangible human
elements, such as political goals, for use with more
9
tangible elements , such as dollar costs, acreages, and housing units. While this study does not consider tangible elements, there is a need to standardize the Delphi Poll results with the ability ratings for each land use control to meet the specified goals. If costs of land or acreages were to be used in a subsequent evaluation,
g
Mcallister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning -Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic, and Political Trade-offs, pp. 39, 40.
9
Thomas Clark, "Cost Effectiveness Analysis", unpublished, 1985, Chapter 6 - Strategies and the Evaluation of Alternatives.


33
these can be easily added into the framework developed in this study.
2.4.2 Summary of Differential Analysis and Evaluation
Step 1. Outline each alternative strategy including measured short-run and discounted long-run impacts of each. Impacts are the difference between future ends if the strategy were implemented, and the future ends if not implemented. The impacts in this study translate into the ability of each land use control to meet nine goal areas outlined in Section 2.5.
Step 2. Feed this information to panel of experts and perform Delphi polling for each alternative.
Step 3. Results of Delphi polling become numerical Importance Scores of each alternative
Step 4. Standardize the Ability Scores and Importance Scores to alleviate the effect of the different metrics used in measurement.
Step 5. Find the Differential or difference between Importance Scores and Ability Scores for each land use control within each goal area for both the long-run and short-run.
Step 6. Find the mean Differential for each land use control for both long-run and short-run.
Step 7. Rank the mean Differentials: The lower the Differential value, the closer each land use control comes to meeting each goal area, based on the importance


34
of that goal area to Residents, Developers, Elected Officials, and Public Planners combined.
2.5 Goal Areas Addressed by Land Use Control Strategies
The basis for impact categories selected in the Delphi polling and elements of the analysis in Chapter Four is composed of three major goal areas, each with subgoals. These were selected as typical goals for communities after review of aircraft noise issues described in Chapter I. Ideally speaking, it is desirable that all community goals be met. In reality, however, this is not possible as some goals will conflict with others. For this reason, the goals are given weights of relative community importance in the Delphi polling.
2.5.1 Public Welfare/Quality of Life
1) Minimize number of people affected by aircraft overflight noise.
2) Maximize inter-jurisdictional sharing of responsibility in preventing development of land uses incompatible to airport operation.
3) Maximize fairness through compensation for property value loss.
2.5.2 Economic
1) Provide market demand/supply balance of land available for various uses.
2) Minimize windfall for wipeout situations in the land market.
3) Minimize implementation costs of land use controls.


35
2.5.3 Effectiveness of Land Use Control
1) Find permanent solutions to the land use incompatibility problem.
2) Find enforceable solutions to the land use incompatibility problem.
3) Protect monetary investment in airport facility and operations.
2.6 Constraints of the Study
The application of this study to an on-going planning effort with the highly dynamic characteristics and controversial issues posed for a new airport in the City of Denver poses problems in gathering information for analysis. Decisions are being made and new problems arising on a regular basis, some of which are related to the land use incompatibility issue. Because of the highly political nature of the project, careful consideration must be given to how some information is gathered, sometimes limiting opportunities.
Because implementation of public controls is a highly complex area of interrelated issues, absolute delimitation of elements is difficult. Measurements of human values and judgments, and projections of property values and the costs of implementation of controls over the long term are not geared to absolute quantification.
A benefit of using a modified cost-effectiveness evaluation model is that different values can be plugged into it as conditions change through the long-or short-run.


CHAPTER III
LITERATURE SURVEY
Approaches to addressing the negative noise impact of airports range from the very broad federal environmental assessments, to -state review, regional cooperation, and very focused local government efforts in implementation of specific land use controls. Federally mandated environmental assessments serve the purpose of identifying the impacts but do nothing to remove the impact. States may attempt to exert control over the kinds of land use controls to be used in reducing the extent of negative noise impacts, but do not have the authority over how effectively the controls are administered. It is the local government level where actual noise abatement can be effectuated.
3.1. Federal Regulations
3.1.1 NEPA - Environmental Considerations
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 broadly addresses environmental impacts from federally funded projects. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that balanced decision making occurs in the total public interest through an interdisciplinary evaluation of


37
anticipated consequences of "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment"1 2. The term "major actions" is not defined in the Act, but has been interpreted by lead agencies through comparison of predicted impacts with environmental quality standards by project type. The general interpretation has been summarized to include actions:
1. That are likely to have a significantly adverse impact on natural ecological, cultural, or scenic resources of national, state, or local significance.
2. That are likely to be highly controversial regarding relocation of housing resources.
3. That divide or disrupt an established community; disrupt orderly, planned development; are inconsistent with plans or goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located; or cause increased congestion.
4. That involve inconsistency with any national, state, or local standard relating to the environment; have a significantly detrimental impact on air or water quality or on ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; involve a possibility of contamination of a public water supply system; or affect groundwater, flooding, erosion, or sedimentation.
Development of an airport falls within the scope of the above criteria as a "major action". The Environmental Impact Statement process included in NEPA identifies and evaluates the noise impacts on the human environment
1The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, PL 91-190, 91st Congress, S. 1075, Jan. 1, 1970.
2
Larry W. Canter, Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw-Hill, 1977, p. 5.


38
3
from aircraft overflight. The evaluation process as applied to airport projects might consists of:
1. Discussion of proposed alternatives to the proposed project including a "no-action" alternative of impacts from not building an airport.
2. Long term effects on future generations for beneficial use of the environment affected by the construction of an airport. Short-term addresses construction phases, while long-term effects address operational life of the airport such as future expandability of the airport.
3. Irreversible loss of resources resulting from construction of an airport. This addresses changes in land use and monetary expenditures involved. The number of residences located within and subject to relocation within the airport influence area and land use compatibility studies of areas adjacent to the airport project are considered.
The Environmental Impact Statement is used as an informational tool to bring to the attention of all interested parties the potential negative effects of development of an airport. While it will identify the extent of noise impacts, noise sensitive areas, and suggest mitigation measures, it is not intended to preclude airport development. It is the responsibility 3
3
Canter, Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw-Hill, 1977, pp. 6-8.


39
of the Federal Aviation Administration to declare an EIS adequate in respect to the dissemination of information regarding impacts of the project. It is the responsibility of the airport authority to mitigate the negative impacts identified in the EIS as part of the balanced planning process in the public interest. However, it is not required by law that the airport authority follow the specific recommendations of the Environmental Impact Statement.
3.1.2 FAR Part 36 Program
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36 addresses the aircraft overflight noise issue from the standpoint of aircraft technology and controlling noise at the source. Part 36 requires all subsonic jet powered aircraft to comply with certain noise level criteria if the aircraft was certified after December 1, 1969. Noise contours are projected to shrink by year 2020 due to this legislation. This has been called a "technical fix" which is quicker, easier, and more predictable than "social engineering", alternatives such as land use controls.
Critics claim that Part 36 has not effected improvements in new aircraft design as quickly as intended because of time extensions being granted. With the time lag involved in antiquation and replacement of aircraft with those meeting Part 36 standards, the law does not produce immediate reduction in the extent of noise impact. Furthermore, the number of scheduled flights has


40
increased to counteract any decreases in noise levels as
4
required by Part 36 .
3.1.3 FAR Part 150 Program for Noise Mitigation
Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 was created out of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. Responsibility was placed with the Federal Aviation Administration to assist airport operators in planning for land use compatibility with surrounding communities. Approval of a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program is required for receiving federal grants for noise abatement or mitigation projects. A benefit of the program is anticipated reduction in the liability for noise generated by the airport.
The FAR Part 150 Program established guidelines for voluntary identification by airport authorities of noise and land use incompatibility. Standard land use compatibility criteria within LDN contours are established for the program to assure consistent treatment of noise sensitive activities and areas. In summary, these criteria state that residences, hospitals, churches, auditoriums, and schools are not compatible within the 65 or greater LDN contours unless properly sound insulated. Residences and schools are not recommended and are strongly discouraged. Commercial, industrial, and recreational uses are 4
4
Robert B. Bell, Lisa M. Bell, "Airport Noise:
Legal Developments and Economic Alternatives", Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 8, #4, 1980, pp. 637, 638.


42
to high noise impact areas of airports in granting mortgage loans. The criteria used by HUD in determining land use compatibility and the need for sound insulation is the same as that used by the FAA in its Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Program.
3.1.5 Military Installation Compatible Use Zones
Federal military bases are in the process of implementing Installation Compatible Use Zone programs for the purpose of decreasing the aircraft noise impact on surrounding communities. Fort Knox and Fort McClellan are currently turning out progress review reports on their programs, but these were not yet available at the time of this writing. A civil engineering masters thesis from the University of Florida does provide a summary of the scope of the program, however.
The 1985 thesis looked at the problem of incompatible land uses due to noise generated from airbases entirely from the military angle, which in some respects has similarities to a public airport situation. For instance, the military often must deal with a number of jurisdictions in implementing corrective measures to assure compatible land uses6, as must public airports.
Only three land use controls were considered in the thesis: Specialized Zoning, Restrictive Easements, and
James E. Owens, "An Overview of Compatible Land Use Planning Techniques for Military Air Installations", Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Civil Engineering Dept., Summer, 1985, pp. 62 - 68.


43
Land Purchase. Each control was summarized for definition, means of implementation, permanence, and ease of enforcement by the military. The thesis did not evaluate the controls from the political, economic, or public interest aspect.
3.2 State Regulations
3.2.1 Environmental Policy Acts
Some states have legislated environmental policy acts which can be more stringent than the federal version. They are basically patterned after NEPA in purpose and process, but are applicable to state funding for projects.
3.2.2 Areas of Statewide Importance
The American Law Institute provides in A Model Land Development Code as a means for states to have final decision-making power over certain kinds of land areas and developments. State review of some local powers is justified by problems presented when more than one local jurisdiction is affected by a large project such as a regional airport.
Within the process, an independent board reviews appeals of local decisions by comparing detriments and benefits of the development. Impacts on surroundings and the need for the development in a particular location are considered. Accompanying this review is a review of Areas of Critical State Concern whereby the state does


44
not implement land use controls but has supervisory jurisdiction over the content of the local land use controls.
Designation of an airport as an Area of Critical State Concern kicks in review of the facility for its effect on the local economic system. Adjacent private development may likewise be reviewed under the designation for its effect on the efficient operation of the airport, protecting any state investment in the facility.
A weakness in the Critical Areas process is that it is only an appeal process. An airport site may be selected under the NEPA process and adjacent land uses planned. The adjacent area may then be designated a Critical Area and the land use plans appealed to the state board. State control over adjacent development is complicated by the fact that the state had no input into the earlier decision of the siting of the airport. This can be a major problem because of the growth inducing effect on adjacent areas an airport has.
Another weakness is the omission of authority for the state to exercise power over existing local comprehensive plans even after a Critical Area has been designated. Unless local jurisdictions cooperate by revising their comprehensive plans to reflect the intentions of the designation, the plan may continue to guide development in a manner not consistent with the designation. In addition, the state is only authorized to review and


45
amend local land use control regulations. Implementing the regulations is left in the hands of the local jurisdiction. This presents a problem because of local interpretation of the regulations when reviewing individual development proposals on a case-by-case basis. Over a
period of time, interpretations may be inconsistent with
. 7
the Critical Areas designation purpose .
While the Critical Areas process is intended to address impacts of a broad, far-reaching nature, it seems that this characteristic has potential to defeat its purpose. The act of implementing land use controls within airport environs under this process is also broad, and consistent implementation success across the diverse realm of multi-jurisdictional situations is limited.
3.3 Local Strategies
3.3.1 Site Selection and Configuration of Runways
Development of a new airport at Denver serves as a good illustration of the time, effort, evaluation, and people involved in site selection. Potential noise impacts on urban development is a large consideration in the evaluation. The need for a new or enlarged airport at Denver was first officially identified in 1975. There have-been numerous studies conducted since then under co-
7Daniel R. Mandelker, "Critical Area Controls: A New Dimension In American Land Development Regulation", Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 41, January, 1975, pp. 21-32.


46
ordination of the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the City of Denver with the purpose of identifying a site which met a myriad of environmental, economic, topographic, and social criteria. These were the Metro Airport Study Phases I and II begun in 1978, Potential Expansion of Stapleton International Airport into the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Final Report, 1982, Metro Airport Study Phase III and Final Report, 1983, Alternate Configurations for a New Airport Final Report, 1985, and New Airport Master Plan Study- Site Selection Study, 1986.
Aircraft noise levels, generalized future noise impact areas, and land use control strategies were among the considerations of each of these studies. The Site Selection Study went a step further in evaluating the economic and social effects relating to land use changes as well as potential for problems in implementing land use controls and managing growth for each alternative airport site. This evaluation was done in a broad sense without evaluating specific land use controls.
3.3.2 Local Inter-Governmental Agreements
The City of Denver in its planning for a new airport serves as an excellent example of local level efforts at solving the residential incompatibility problem with airports. Denver wishes to reduce the pressure from surrounding residential neighborhoods and jurisdictions regarding negative aircraft noise impacts. Because Denver must annex land to locate a new airport, there is


47
added incentive to cooperate with adjacent jurisdictions on the noise issue in order to win a vote allowing annexation of land into Denver. Surrounding jurisdictions can gain opportunities for economic development by furthering any effort towards development of a new airport. With promise of reduced noise impact and an enhanced economy, all players can benefit from inter-governmental agreements drawn up between Denver, Adams County, Commerce City, and Aurora.
Under the agreements, each jurisdiction has the opportunity to evaluate airport layout, noise impact projections, rules and flight paths, transportation access corridors,■and other social and environmental impacts. Since the airport is planned to be located in Adams County, representatives of that jurisdiction were allowed strong input into the decision of selecting the best runway configurations under criteria for minimizing or removing noise impacts on existing residential neighborhoods®.
Also included in the inter-governmental agreements is the stipulation that all jurisdictions will work together to develop a comprehensive plan to guide development of compatible land uses within the new airport influence area.
O
Robert Kowalski, "Adams Officials Endorse Runway Plan For New Airport", Denver Post, Dec. 17, 1986, p. IB.


48
While the inter-governmental agreements expose the needs of each jurisdiction regarding minimizing aircraft noise impacts, they stop short of defining actual means of meeting those needs by preventing incompatible land uses. With multi-jurisdictional comprehensive land use planning under way, the most cost-effective means of implementing the plan must be selected.
3.3.3 Local Government Reference Guide
The California Department of Transportation in 1983
commissioned preparation of a reference guide for plan-
9
ning compatible land uses surrounding airports . The scope of the guide is similar to the guidelines set out in the federal Part 150 Program in defining noise impact areas, setting noise compatibility guidelines for various land uses, and recommending sound insulation.
While there is no cost/effectiveness evaluation of possible land use controls to be used in a land use compatibility program, the study does consider the effect of noise on the surrounding community. Results of a study analyzing community reaction to intrusive noise are given. Using the rate of complaints from residents within each defined LDN noise contour, it was determined that a distinctly positive relationship exists between
9
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook - A Reference and Guide for Local Agencies, prepared for the California Dept, of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, July, 1983.


49
community reaction to aircraft noise and higher LDN noise levels.


CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS
OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE CONTROL STRATEGIES
The various land use control strategies to be evaluated are analyzed below in general application to airport environs land use, and the results summarized in two matrices, Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Strategies are rated for their relative abilities in meeting the nine stated goal areas in both the short-run (up to five years) and the long-run (6 to 20 years). Results of the Delphi polling are then presented as analysis of community weighted importance of each goal area.
4.1 General Analysis
The thesis hypotheses state that traditional Euclidean zoning is not the most effective land use control tool for preventing residential development in high noise impact areas of airports, and there are land use controls which would be more effective. The land use controls selected for this analysis were chosen based on their reputations as generally successful innovative tools in various applications. Some of the controls have been in use for many years; others are so new that practicing tech-


51
niques are still being perfected. The Federal Aviation Administration has published a description of a number of land use controls applicable to airport compatibility planning in conjunction with the FAR Part 150 Program. Some of the content below is taken from those descriptions^ .
The General Analysis of Abilities for Controls to Meet Goals in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 summarize the following text of general analysis. A numerical rating scores each land use control for relative adequacy in meeting the nine goal areas used in the evaluation as stated in Chapter Two. These are more thoroughly defined as Elements of the Analysis in Section 4.1.1 below. All goal areas are considered independently of each other in every case but the last (see ELEMENTS OF THE ANALYSIS, 9. Protect Airport Investment).
This analysis applies to general land use applications across the United States. Ratings are based on a number of sources including the researcher's academic knowledge of land use and economics, expert opinions in literature of the field, and the use of the results of the Case Studies Questionnaire as a general guide.
Results of the questionnaire are shown in Table 4.3 and discussed in Section 4.2.
^Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports ,~ Advisory Circular, AC 150/5020-1, Federal Aviation Administration, August 5, 1983.


TABLE "T7T
GENERAL ANALYSIS OF ABILITIES FOR CONTROLS TO MEET GOALS - Short Run
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IMPACT Minimize Maximize Minimize Minimize Maximize Minimize Maximize Maximize Protect
CATEGORY Housing Shared Effect Effect Fairness Implemen Perma- Enforce- Airport
GOAL Units Respons- On Land on Land Through tation nence ability Invest-
AREAS Affected ibility Market Values Compen- Costs by ment
By Noise sation Airport
LAND USE
CONTROLS ABILITY SCORES
1. Zoning Restrictions 20 15 11 7 1 19 15 1 15
2. Property Acquisition 12 18 14 17 19 5 20 20 20
3. Purchase
Development Rights 20 20 11 11 20 9 20 20 20
4. Avigation Easements 20 20 15 10 17 13 20 20 20
5. TDR's 11 11 17 11 16 18 17 i 7
6. Tax Incentives 11 11 13 9 19 20 11 i 9
7. Pprfnrm.
Standards 9 11 13 5 1 20 11 i 9
8. Capital Improvements 20 11 9 9 1 20 15 i 15
RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 = Excellent ability; 1 = Poor Ability to meet goals
52


TABLE 4.2
GENERAL ANALYSIS OF ABILITY FOR CONTROLS TO MEET GOALS - Long Run
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IMPACT Minimize Maximize Minimize Minimize Maximize Minimize Maximize Maximize Protect
CATEGORY Housing Shared Effect Ef feet Fairness Implemen Perma- Enforce- Airport
GOAL Units Respons- On Land on Land Through tation nence ability Invest-
AREAS Affected ibility Market Values Compen- Costs by ment
By Noise sation Airport
LAND USE
CONTROLS ABILITY SCORES
1. Zoning
Restrictions 20 7 11 7 1 20 8 1 7
2. Property
Acguisition 11 19 11 17 19 11 20 20 20
3. Purchase
Development
Rights 20 20 11 12 19 11 20 20 20
4. Avigation
Easements 20 20 15 11 17 15 20 20 20
5. TDR’s ii 7 15 9 15 19 18 1 7
6. Tax
Incentives 7 7 5 9 19 20 4 1 5
7. Perform.
Standards 9 7 9 5 1 20 7 1 5
8. Capital
Improvements 20 — 7 = 7 7 --=== 1 20 — 11 = = = = = 1 13
RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 = Excellent Ability; 1 = Poor Ability to meet goal
53


54
4.1.1 Elements of the Analysis
There are nine elements of the analysis which correspond to the nine goal areas. The scope of each is described below as they apply to the general adequacy analysis.
1. Minimize number of housing units affected by noise. The overriding goal in airport noise compatibility planning is to minimize the number of people adversely affected by noise impacts. It has been determined by the FAA and HUD that housing constructed within LDN contours over 65 is not a compatible use and could be expected to generate a high degree of noise complaints. While housing within the 65 LDN is very undesirable, if it is determined that housing must be built, it must be adequately sound insulated. The land use controls are rated for their potential adequacy in preventing all residential development in LDN contours 65 and greater.
2. Maximize shared multi-jurisdictional responsibility. Since planning for compatible land uses involves many diverse jurisdictions which can benefit from airport-generated economic development, implementation of land use controls often requires a great deal of cooperation. These jurisdictions may not want to lose control of land use or tax revenues from noise impacted land. However, reliance on inter-jurisdictional cooperation in the long-run can cause failure of some land use


55
controls. Inter-governmental agreements are sometimes broken over time, decreasing the long-run adequacy of land use controls which rely on this cooperation. Alternative controls are analyzed for their relative adequacy to effectively make use of inter-governmental cooperation or eliminate the need for it altogether.
3. Minimize effect on the land market. Efficiency and equity in the allocation of land is a consideration in evaluating land use controls. When a land use control excludes residential uses and in its place includes commercial and industrial, a market supply situation out of
balance with demand can occur and result in a change in 2
price for both . A danger of this situation, which threatens the public economic welfare, exists where residential uses are excluded due to airport noise impacts. Aircraft noise affects many acres of land which, when restricted to compatible uses such as commercial or industrial, can make a large impression in the supply and demand balance. A shortage in residential land and a glut of commercial and industrial land can occur as land ripens for development in airport environs over the long-run. As a result, the cost of housing will rise and value of commercial and industrial land decrease. The alternative controls are rated for their relative ade- 2
2
Gordon C. Bjork, Life, Liberty, and Property - The Economics and Politics of Land-use Planning and Environmental Controls, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1980, pp. 91, 92.


56
quacy in minimizing market imbalance and resulting land value shifts.
4. Minimize effect on land values. Besides the
land value shift effect within the land market, land use
controls can effect the value of land through the inten-. 3
sity of use allowed as much in the short-run, due to speculation, as in the long run. More intensive uses such as commercial bring a higher price on the market than less intensive residential uses. Artificial changes in land value which are incurred by public policy controls and not related to market demand can be undesirable. While some private properties lose value through governmental imposition of land use restrictions, other properties gain value by allowance of more intensive uses. Each land use control is rated for its adequacy in avoiding this windfall for wipeout situation.
5. Maximize fairness through compensation. Some experts and all losing property owners feel compensation should be made where windfall for wipeout situations occur in the land market as a result of land use controls. Law requires compensation where public actions have been found to be arbitrary and capricious in a "taking" of reasonable property use. It is not required when the few lose value in their property for the benefit of the community as a whole. Planning would be inhibited
^Ibid., pp. 62.


57
if every windfall and wipeout had to be identified and compensated. It is desirable, however, to keep windfall and wipeouts at a minimum, but when a government control can inherently make compensation through its implementation, it is much easier for everyone involved. Each land use control is rated for its inherent adequacy at providing fair compensation for losses in property value.
6. Minimize implementation costs. Some land use controls require no more investment of public money than occurs through everyday government administration.
Others may require great front-end expenditures. Sometimes some or all of the money can be recouped through resale of development rights or land, reducing the total cost. In the long-run, costs will be lower as amortization of the front-end investment over time reduces the yearly cost or as costs are recouped through sales. The alternative land use controls are compared for their adequacy in keeping the total cost of implementation as low as possible.
7. Maximize permanence of land use control. Many of the problems with effectiveness of past land use control efforts in high noise impact areas are a result of deterioration of control over time. The alternative controls are rated for their potential to withstand the


58
test of economic and political pressures throughout the life of an airport.
8. Maximize enforceability by the airport authority. Because airport authorities are held legally responsible for noise impacts off the airport, they must have authority to decide the degree to which land use controls will be enforced. Much of their control is lost if they rely on other jurisdictions or the control has not been proven to stand up to legal tests. The land use controls are rated for their relative adequacy in assuring the airport can take enforcement action when it deems necessary.
9. Protect airport investment. Because local restrictions on aircraft flight activity threatens the investment placed in an airport, it is desirable to maximize protection of this investment. Land use controls can contribute a great deal to this protection by eliminating noncompatible land uses which create a need for flight restrictions.
It is very difficult to separate this element and rate it independently from some other elements of the general analysis at hand. The adequacy of enforcement and permanence elements greatly influences the land use control's adequacy in protecting investment in the airport. For this reason, if enforcement and permanence


59
rate highly, it is likely that protection of investment will also.
4.2 Results of Case Studies Questionnaire
Only three of the nine questionnaires were returned, and these were not all completely filled out. This limits the quality of conclusions which can be drawn from the results, but can serve as a guide in the analysis of overall effectiveness of controls currently in use at large airports which are threatened by encroaching residential development.
Table 4.3 summarizes the results of the Case Studies Questionnaire. All three respondents report the use of Restrictive Zoning, Easements, Property Acquisition, and Performance Standards.
4.2.1 Overall Success of Land Use Controls
In the interest of simplicity for the respondents, the questionnaire did not ask for separate success ratings for each land use control used. Unfortunately, this restricts the extent to which the results can be applied to this analysis of each alternative control.
While it can not be positively concluded that the success rating is inversely related to number of years a program is in use, it appears there may be some correlation. Hartsfield-Atlanta rates their land use control program as totally successful after three years of implementation. The success rating is not so high for Dallas-


TABLE 4.3 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
AIRPORT NAME RESPONDENT
AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
AIRPORT CLASS.
ANNUAL ENPLANEMENTS
AIRPORT ACREAGE
LAND USE CONTROLS
ACREAGE CONTROLLED
LAND VALUES EFFECT* * REDISTRIBUTION** MARKET BALANCE** COMPENSATION
COSTS
YEARS IMPLEMENTED LAND RIPENESS** PRESSURE TO REMOVE** CONTROLS REMOVED**
SUCCESS RATING***
FACTORS IN SUCCESS RATING
Dallas-Fort Worth
Comm. Dev. Dir. City of Irving
Cities of Dallas & Fort Worth
International
19 million
17,500
37,343
2
2
3
No*
17 years 3 1 1
7
Multi-jurisdictional control, tax base competition limit effectiveness
Hartsfield-Atlanta
Manager of Airport Planning
City of Atlanta
Major Hub 22.6 million 3,750
27,904
1
1
1
No*
$145 million
3 years 2 1 1
10
Airport review of proposals; technical guidance to other jurisdictions
Seattle-Tacoma
Facilities Devel. Manager
Port of Seattle
Major Hub 6.75 million 2,400
1
1
2
NO*
$150-200 million
12 years 2
2 .
1
5
Restrictive Zoning excludes Residential from 19,750 acres Easements 7,500 ac Prop. Acquis. 100 ac Perf. Stand. 17593 ac
Restrictive Zoning excludes Residential from 3,693 acres Easement 11,706 ac Prop. Acquis. 3693 ac Perf. Stand. 12605 ac
Resrictive Zoning Easement Purchase Property Acquisition Performance Standards
*Some compensation paid by acquisition
**Rated by respondents on scale of 1 = No effect, 2 = Some effect, 3 = Great effect
***Rated by respondents on scale of 1 = total failure, 5 = moderately successful,
10 = totally successful
60


61
Fort Worth and Seattle-Tacoma which have had their programs in place for 12 and 17 years, respectively.
There is a possibility that there is a correlation between the success of the program and the number of acres under controls which provide for enforcement by an airport authority, versus controls requiring a great deal of inter-jurisdictional cooperation . For example, Dallas-Fort Worth, which returned a success rating of 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, excluded residential development from 19,750 acres by use of restrictive zoning, and 17,593 acres have stringent performance standards applied to construction, covering 100 percent of the acreage controlled. These two methods are characteristically easily withdrawn and difficult for the airport authority to control, as documented in Section 4.3 General Analysis of Land Use Controls. Easements owned by the airport authority are applied on top of the zoning and performance standards to only 20 percent of the land, and only .2 percent has been purchased by the airport authority.
In contrast, Hartsfield-Atlanta has purchased and
4
applied easements to 55 percent of the land controlled . The remaining 45 percent is placed under strict construction performance standards. Besides the short testing period this airport's program has been through, the high 4
4
Hartsfield-Atlanta lists 3,693 acres as under restrictive zoning. This acreage is also listed under property which was acquired for open space.


62
success rating of 10 may be a result of the majority of acreage being under controls which are characteristically more easily enforced by the airport authority.
4.2.2 Effect on Land Market and Land Values
Dallas-Fort Worth has experienced a great effect on the land market balance as a result of implementation of the land use controls, again of which zoning and performance standards cover 100 percent of land controlled.
The controls have also had some effect on land values. Seattle-Tacoma reports some effect on the market balance, but no effect on land values. Hartsfield-Atlanta reports no effect on either the market balance or land values.
4.3 General Analysis of Land Use Controls 4.3.1 Restrictive Zoning
Zoning to restrict private property rights is implemented through use of the police powers delegated to a local jurisdiction by the state. It must be based on a comprehensive plan which addresses the community health, safety, and general welfare in all aspects. Airport compatibility planning is targeted at achieving the best in all three of these criteria. Zoning does not reguire compensation to property owners for restricting the use . of their land if it is shown to be in the best interest of the community as a whole. As long as zoning to a less intensive use is backed by economic feasibility studies


63
in the comprehensive planning process it will not constitute a taking away of the property's value.
Traditional zoning which prohibits development of incompatible uses in airport environs involves low implementation costs'5 and has the capacity to control all noise sensitive acreage. However, zoning for compatible uses at the exclusion of residential uses can create imbalance and related land value shifts in the land market. It can also raise land values by zoning for more intensive commercial and industrial uses which demand a higher sales price.
While zoning may be very affordable, it has several weaknesses as a land use control in airport environs. First, it is not necessarily a permanent solution. Decision making bodies are not bound by previous zoning decisions aimed at developing airport compatible uses. They may be under continual pressure to rezone to noncompatible uses especially if the supply and demand in the land market is out of balance. A report on the effects of the Dallas/Fort Worth airport on surrounding land uses gives a good indication of the permanence of zoning as a land use control where a number of jurisdictions are involved. Approximately ten communities are affected by aircraft overflight noise
5Bjork, Life, Liberty, and Property - The Economics and Politics of Land-use Planning and Environmental Controls, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1980, pp.
65.


64
from the airport. The report stated in 1974, after four
years of land use control implementation, that:
Clearly, zoning restrictions may not be particularly effective, either because of a lack of comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances in the communities surrounding the airport or because the existing ordinances are not always enforced. Recommendations for appropriate land use in the airport environs may be either ignored or overlooked by communities surrounding the airport. Daily there are decisions occurring which could adversely affect these communities and the airport itself .
An airport authority does not have the power to zone
land in another jurisdiction. Since airport noise
impacts can stretch for miles into a number of diverse
jurisdictions, effective coordination to assure land use
compatibility is very difficult. While all jurisdictions
may agree to share the responsibility to zone for airport
compatibility at the outset, the potential for them
eventually turning their backs on compatibility for the
sake of economic development is great. The problem of
lack of permanence and airport authority to enforce
zoning is compounded by the number of jurisdictions
involved.
4.3.2 Property Acquisition
A method of assuring permanence and enforceability in land use control in airport environs is to purchase
Harry Wolfe, A Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport on Surface Transportation and Land Use, Council for Advanced Transportation Studies, University of Texas at Austin, April, 1974, p. 30.


65
all land in high noise impact areas. The airport authority would then control it as a property owner and public jurisdiction. Case law suggests that the airport would not have unlimited property use rights if the land would remain within the boundaries of another local jurisdiction. Uses must be kept in the best interest of the public and be evaluated for impacts upon local jurisdictions^. Acceptable uses meeting the needs of affected jurisdictions and the airport could be worked out in the comprehensive planning process.
Because of the typically high cost of purchasing enough land to totally contain high noise impacts, fee simple land acquisition is impractical when used alone.
An added cost is the loss in property tax revenues when land is removed from the tax rolls through acquisition by a public jurisdiction. This tool is most practical when applied only to limited land areas within extreme noise contours where permanent exclusion of incompatible uses is most vital. It will also be more practical if vacant land without infrastructure is the subject of acquisition because of its considerably lower cost.
If an airport authority takes vast acreages off the private market by simply purchasing and holding the land, this alternative has potential to upset the supply and prices of land, at least in the local area.
^Robert C. Ellickson and A. Dan Tarlock, Land-Use Controls; Cases and Materials, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1981, p. 900.


66
4.3.3 Purchase of Development Rights
A more affordable alternative to fee simple property purchase is the acquisition of only the residential development rights attached to the property. Depending on the proximity to existing urban development and infrastructure availability, development rights can
g
amount to up to 90% of the property value .
Development rights can be separated from, the property in three steps. The airport authority would first acquire the property through outright purchase or through eminent domain. Restrictions prohibiting residential use of the property would then be stipulated in the deed and the property put back on the private market for compatible land uses such as agricultural, commercial or industrial. This would have the effect of increasing the property's sale price if commercial or industrial uses are allowed. Consequently, the jurisdiction would reap a profit from the resale of the land. The airport jurisdiction can then use the profit to purchase development rights or land in the highest LDN contours which are not suitable for any development. Local jurisdictions' property tax revenues on the land would increase by the land being taxed at higher use value as commercial or industrial .
g
Peter Wolf, Land In America - Its Value, Use, and Control, Pantheon Books, New York, 1981, p. 289.


67
Purchase of development rights offers the same strong advantages of permanence and enforceability as property purchase. Once the residential development rights are severed from the property, they can only be reinstated and deed restrictions removed by the airport authority. The need for multi-jurisdictional sharing of responsibility is alleviated, and the investment in the airport protected because the airport authority has taken full responsibility to remove the possibility of incompatible uses.
As with zoning, governmental control of land uses through development right acquisition can have adverse effects on the land market balance. While land prices may be unintentionally affected through market imbalance, purchase of development rights is a fair means of controlling private property. It offers compensation to property owners for the fair market value of rights to develop residential uses. Compensation would be more than fair where owners gain new commercial or industrial development rights.
4.3.4 Acquisition or Dedication of Avigation Easements
Another alternative to property acquisition is acquisition of avigation easements across property in high noise impact areas of airports. There are two kinds of easements available to airport environs land use control:


68
Positive avigation easements allow aircraft to make noise over the property. These are commonly used in built-out areas, but can be applied to vacant land under development. Any new homes built would have a positive easement attached to the property deed. This would serve the double purpose of releasing the airport authority from liability for noise impacts to the home, and also serve to notify property purchasers of potential noise impacts.
Negative avigation easements prevent creation or continuation of unprotected noise sensitive land uses. Attachment of a negative easement to the deeds of properties in high noise impact areas precludes construction of incompatible land uses which are not sufficiently insulated to mitigate noise effects.
Easements may be acquired in three ways. They may be purchased outright, be dedicated to the airport authority through local agency approval of new subdivisions, or be acquired through condemnation. Whichever means is used, they may be acquired at no cost or at a fraction of the total property value. Fair compensation for loss of use or value resulting from the airport authority's right to generate noise over the property is made if the easements are purchased.
Easements are fully enforceable legal tools and offer permanence because they run with the land. They


69
can only be removed from deeds by the airport authority being granted the easements.
Lands with easements attached are not removed from property tax rolls. They remain in private ownership and use restrictions are limited. Positive easements serve a purpose of warning purchasers of subject property of potential aircraft noise impacts. Home buyers then have the opportunity to make an informed choice of whether or not to buy a home in a high noise impact area. While easements may reduce the value of the property by warning potential buyers who are sensitive to noise, those buyers willing to accept noise in exchange for lower housing costs will preserve some demand and value for the land with minimal impact on the supply.
Because property owners are warned before purchasing homes in high noise impact areas, the easement releases the airport authority of liability for noise impacts. Since operations of the airport cannot be threatened by complaints from surrounding residential neighborhoods, airport investment is protected. In addition, there is no need for multi-jurisdictional sharing of responsibility because the airport authority has assumed all responsibility by being granted avigation easements covering all lands in high noise impact areas.
4.3.5 Transfer of Development Rights
Transfer of development rights (TDR's) also involves separation of residential development rights from the


70
property. The TDR mechanism carries the separation further by designating an appropriate planning area to receive the severed development rights. Therefore, imbalances in the land market are less likely to occur.
Under a TDR system, noise sensitive transfer areas are zoned for non-residential uses and the severed residential development rights are quantified through saleable certificates issued to the property owners. Specific receiver areas are zoned to accept the quantified residential development rights. TDR's may be sold by a property owner in the transfer district to an owner in the receiver district, or purchased by the airport authority and then sold into the receiver district.
In the long-run, TDR's cost the airport authority little or nothing in acquisition costs because costs are recovered through sale. However, TDR's cannot be successful if there is no market for residential development rights in a receiver zone. The tool is most effective in
growing urban fringe areas where there is a demand for
9
new housing combined with land preservation goals , such as would be the case in development of a new airport and its environs. In this situation, the prospects of there being both a buyer and seller for the residential development right are good. 9
9
Hershel J. Richman and Lane H. Kendig, "Transferable Development Rights - A Pragmatic View", Environmental Comment, April, 1978, p. 4.


71
TDR's cost the property owner nothing in the long-run because compensation for loss in development value is available through sale of the development right. If property is included in LDN contours which can accept compatible commercial or industrial development, the development value is actually increased.
Permanence of the TDR system is guaranteed by attaching a deed restriction prohibiting residential development to the property once the residential development rights are sold. The property tax base for the local jurisdiction does not suffer because residential rates would be redistributed within the jurisdiction along with the development right. Property taxes would even increase where land gains commercial or industrial use rights in place of residential.
Enforceability can be a problem with TDR's as a land use control. If the property is zoned to restrict residential, until the residential development right is transferred, there is potential for the zoning to be changed to allow incompatible uses. The airport authority has no control over when the right will be severed from the property. Another enforcement problem is that transfer and receiver districts will probably not be under the airport authority jurisdiction but under the jurisdiction of a local government or a number of local governments. The same weaknesses of zoning surface because the system relies on a great deal of multi-


72
jurisdictional sharing of responsibility. Investment in the airport therefore cannot be guaranteed and the assurance that all noise sensitive areas will be treated with appropriate development restrictions is not great.
4.3.6 Tax Incentives - Differential Property Assessment
Vacant acreage within the highest LDN contours where no development would be compatible may be considered for an open space buffer between the airport and development in less severe LDN contours. A means of discouraging development is differential property assessment which offers lowered property tax for keeping the land in agricultural use. There are two types of differential property assessment which have been used in farmland preservation:
Preferential property assessment allows farmland under pressure for development on the urban fringe to be taxed at its value for agricultural production rather than its fair market value for development. As the farmer's tax burden is reduced, farming costs are reduced along with the temptation to sell out to land developers.
Property tax deferral is similar to preferential property assessment. The difference is that upon sale of agricultural land at its developable value, or conversion to a noncompatible use, owners are required to pay some


73
or all of the taxes which they had been excused from paying while the land was kept in agricultural use1^.
Encroaching suburbanization often encourages farmers to sell their land because of the vandalism and complaints it brings to farm areas, along with rising property values and taxes. Two conditions must exist to create the possibility for tax incentives to be effective in preventing farmers from selling out for development. First, assessed values based on fair market values must be significantly higher than those based on agricultural use value. Second, taxes must be rising on the property. Both these conditions exist where a new airport is planned for land under significant development pressure on or near the urban fringe. A third desirable condition is that the farmland being held for agriculture is of good quality for crop or livestock production.
Differential property assessment as a permanent solution to land use incompatibility problems around airports is questionable. A Council on Environmental Quality study argues that differential tax assessment is "marginally effective" in long-term prevention of development11. First of all, there is no guarantee owners of
1^)The Protection of Farmland: A Reference Guidebook for State and Local Governments, National Agricultural Lands Study, Regional Science Research Institute,
Amherst, Mass., no date, p. 57.
11Untaxing Open Space: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Open
Space, Council on Environmental Quality, April, 1976, p. 115.


74
designated properties in high noise impact areas will participate. Secondly, owners are free to pull out of the program at any time even though it will be costly to them in back taxes.
The land market balance on the urban fringe can be affected by differential tax assessment. The system is designed to keep land out of the developable land market. If the system is successful, a shortage of housing could take place in the local area and the price of housing rise12.
The Council on Environmental Quality study also argues that the cost of differential tax assessment in terms of tax expenditures is high because the property tax burden is often shifted to other sectors13. Differential tax assessment should not be viewed as causing a loss in property taxes revenues (cost in tax expenditure) or a shift in assessments to other taxpayers, however.
If the land remains undeveloped, costs for infrastructure and services remain minimal. There is, therefore, no added cost and no justification for added property taxes.
12
Bjork, Life, Liberty, and Property - The Economics
Controls, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 95. 13 Untaxing Open Space: An Evaluation o: 1980, pp. £ the Effec-
tiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Open
Space, Council on Environmental Quality, Apr: 115. il, 1976, p.


75
4.3.7 Strict Performance Standards in Building Codes
All structures built within moderately high LDN noise contours can be sound insulated to different degrees, depending on the use of the structure and interior noise level sought. HUD guidelines require sound insulation for any homes built within a 65 LDN contour to meet a minimum standard reducing interior noise to a comfortable level. One possible means of discouraging development in high noise impact areas of airports is by requiring noise insulation standards which exceed that minimum for new construction through local building codes.
A building code requiring high standards to mitigate most or all of the aircraft overflight noise impact to building interiors would discourage incompatible development by raising building costs to a level where construction would not be cost-efficient. This could pose a legal public welfare problem of an exclusionary effect by precluding construction of affordable housing for low and moderate income families.
Strict performance standards could affect the land market balance of demand and supply for residential land. Unless it is economically feasible to build in the high noise impact area, the supply of affordable residential land will be decreased, and the price increased elsewhere
in the market area.


76
Another potential difficulty with this tool is that
the land would lose value if it were too costly to build 14
upon . If the price of the land dropped so low as to make up for the high cost of construction, development could occur despite strict building codes. If the goal is not to prevent development altogether but to assure it is built to reduce noise impacts to building interiors, this goal would be met. However, fairness of the tool may be a factor because the original property owners would ask compensation for loss in property values.
Multi-jurisdictional cooperation and sharing of responsibility would be required but difficult to guarantee in implementing the building codes. Permanence could not be guaranteed because the building code could be changed to allow less stringent standards. Enforcement of the strict codes would be the responsibility of a local jurisdiction and not be possible by the airport authority.
4.3.8 Public Capital Improvements
Another means of discouraging development in a particular area is through capital improvements policy.
Areas where provision of fire, police, schools, roads, sewer, and water services is withheld, land is not developable. This has the effect of eliminating the possibility of any incompatible development. Residential devel-
14
Wolf, Land in America - Its Value, Use, and Control, Pantheon Books, New York, 1981, p. 152.


77
opment can be guided toward lower noise impact areas by providing services in those areas.
Guiding development through provision of public capital improvements must be done through comprehensive planning. As a general rule, services cannot be withheld for the purpose of excluding new residential development in a jurisdiction. Enough services must be provided to meet housing demand. Where location of the services is a policy decision, the decision must be tested to show that it is in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. In planning land use in the environs of a new airport, the justification for guiding incompatible development away from the airport in the public's interest is strong when based on solid noise impact evidence.
There are a number of problems with using capital improvements to prevent residential development in airport environs. Multi-jurisdictional cooperation and sharing of responsibility would be necessary but difficult to achieve. Enforcement would not be in the hands of the airport jurisdiction and permanence would not be guaranteed because capital improvements programs can be revised regularly. Therefore, investment in the airport could not be guaranteed protection in the long run.


78
Enhancing access and providing services to vacant farmland increases its value as developable property'1''’.
By withdrawing future provision of public improvements to prime development land, the land has questionable future use and generally declines in value'*'®. Property owners left with no future infrastructure possibilities may ask for compensation for loss in future property values.
If capital improvements are not provided for residences in high noise impact areas, they also are not available for commercial or industrial uses. Precluding commercial and industrial development from airport environs could create a wide disparity between demand and supply of land for these uses because it is a prime locality for businesses.
4.4 Application of Delphi Polling
4.4.1 Administration of Poll
Impact Categories Rating Sheets and a brief description of land use control strategies and their implications were distributed to twenty five members of the New Airport Citizen Advisory Committee. The form of the questionnaire is included in the Appendix.
15
Wolf, Land in America - Its Value, Use, and Control, Pantheon Books, New York, 1981, pp. 152, 232, 233.
16Wolf, Land in America - Its Value, Use, and Control, Pantheon Books, New York, 1981, p. 262.


79
A fairly even distribution of elected official, development, resident, and planner interests were represented by the questionnaire mailing, as shown in Table 4.4. The various jurisdictions represented are also shown.
4.4.2 Rate of response
Of the 25 questionnaires sent, 17 or 68% were returned (Table 4.5). One return was not used because it was not labelled with type of respondent. Six residents, 1 elected official, 3 developers, and 6 planners are verified respondents. The unequal distribution of interests in the responses reduces the accuracy of results in the final evaluation.
4.4.3 Results of the Delphi Poll
Members receiving questionnaires were asked to rate the nine goal areas according to the relative importance to the interests they represent on a scale of 1 to 20, where 1 represents the most important, and 20 the least important. Results of the Delphi Poll were standardized to the scale of the General Analysis of Ability to Meet Goals shown are shown in Table 4.6 and represented graphically in Figure 4.1.
Table 4.6 and Figure 4.1 show the spread of a Mean Importance Score for each response category and each of the goal areas. For later analysis, Mean Importance


80
TABLE 4.4 - DELPHI POLL MAILING
JURISDICTION RESIDENT ELECTED OFFICIAL DEVELOPER PLANNER TOTAL
Aurora 1 1 1 1 4
Denver 5 0 5 1 • 11
Adams Co.* 2 3 1 2 8
Environmental Protection Agency 1 1
Denver Regional COG > 1 1
1 " 1
TOTALS 8 4 7 6 25
TABLE 4.5 DELPHI POLL RETURNS
NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES SENT PERCENT OF TOTAL SENT NUMBER RETURNED PERCENT OF CATEGORY RETURNED PERCENT OF TOTAL RETURNED
RESPONDENT CATEGORY
Resident 8 32% 6 75% 35%
Elected Official 4 16% 1 25% 6% 1 |
Developer 7 28% 3 43% 1 1 18%
Public Planner 6 24% 6 100% 35%
Not Identified 1 6%
TOTALS Percent 25 100% 17 68% 1 100%


TABLE 4.6 RESULTS OF DELPHI POLL
IMPACT 1 Minimize 2 Maximize 3 Minimize 4 Minimize 5 Maximize 6 Minimize 7 Maximize 8 Maximize 9 Protect
CATEGORY Housing Shared Effect Effect Fairness Implemen Perma- Enforce- Airport
GOAL Units Respons- On Land on Land Through tation nence ability Invest-
AREAS Affected By Noise ibility Market Values Compen- sation Costs by Airport ment
============ ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========= ======== ========
RESPONDENT
CATEGORY Resident
No. 1 20 18 18 20 16 16 18 6 18
2 20 20 11 11 9 20 20 20 11
3 20 20 11 6 6 20 20 9 11
4 20 20 11 7 4 19 20 19 14
5 20 20 11 11 20 16 20 20 ' 20
6 20 20 1 1 16 20 20 20 20
Mean 20.00 19.67 10.50 9.33 11.83 18.50 19.67 15.67 15.67
Std. Dev. 0.00 0.12 3.69 3.48 5.55 1.43 0.12 4.01 3.72
Elec. Offic.
No. 1 20 20 11 11 11 16 20 20 11
Mean 20.00 20.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 16.00 20.00 20.00 11.00
Std. Dev. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Developer
No. 1 18 20 9 4 7 13 17 16 1
2 1 6 16 20 1 11 16 1 20
3 1 16 20 9 1 1 11 6
Mean 9.50 9.00 13.67 14.67 5.67 8.33 11.33 9.33 9.00
Std. Dev. 4.25 3.30 1.10 2.51 3.28 4.23 6.27 4.37 6.02
Planner
No. 1 20 20 16 11 16 18 20 1 16
2 19 17 15 15 18 20 18 16 16
3 18 3 6 9 9 16 20 19 18
4 20 20 11 6 16 16 20 13 6
5 • 20 16 6 11 11 20 16 19 13
6 20 20 11 11 11 16 20 20 11
Mean 19.50 16.00 10.83 10.50 13.50 17.67 19.00 14.67 13.33
^ U.U . UC V •
_ __ , | 1 - 1 1 1 MEAN
IMPORTANCE 18.40 16.31 11.25 10.88 11.25 16.13 17.88 14.38 13.25
SCORE
======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========= ======== ========
STANDARD
DEVIATION 4.85 6.55 4.42 5.64 5.36 4.84 4.71 6.65 5.74
============ II II II II II II II II II
RELATIVE RATING SCALE: 20 = Excellent ability/High Importance; 1 = Poor Ability/Low Importance
81


MEAN IMPORTANCE SCORE
FIGURE 4.1 DELPHI POLL RESULTS
X XI Res.
. IMPACT CATEGORY GOAL AREAS
\\l Elected '(///A Dev.
vSSSj Planner


83
Scores for all response categories are also shown at the bottom of Table 4.6.
4.4.4 Observations of Result of Delphi Poll
The Residents interest group was well represented with 6 out of the 8 (75 percent), of the questionnaires sent to this category returned. These comprised 32 percent of all sent and 38 percent of all returned.
Residents rated Goal Area 1, Minimize Housing Units Affected By Noise, and Goal Area 8, Maximize Enforceability by Airport, as the most important, followed closely by Goal Area 2, Maximize Shared Responsibility, and Goal Area 7, Maximize Permanence. Goal Areas 3 through 5 dealing with the land market, land values, and compensation to speculative landowners rated lowest in this group.
These results indicate strong value orientation toward preservation of a quality living environment through assurance of permanent controls to reduce aircraft noise impacts in residential neighborhoods with little concern for speculative interests.
The results expressed as Mean Importance Scores from the group as a whole are most representative of individual responses in Goal Areas 1, 2, and 7 with negligible standard deviations. The Mean Importance Scores are least representative of individual ratings in Goal Area 5 with a standard deviation of 5.55.


84
Considering the high rate of response in the Resident category and the very low standard deviations in the Goal Areas rated holding the highest importance, it is accurate to state that minimizing the number of housing units affected by aircraft noise, maximizing shared responsibility in controlling land use to avoid noise impacts, and maximizing permanence of land use controls are the highest priorities of the goal area choices presented to this group.
The Elected Officials interest category was not well represented by responses to the questionnaire with only 1 of 4 (25 percent) questionnaires returned. This amounts to only 6 percent of all those returned.
The one respondent rated Goal Areas 1, 2, 7, and 8 as equally most important to the political interests he represents. Goal Areas 3, 4, 5, and 9 were all rated equally least important, but still holding a certain degree of importance, being rated at 11.
The Developer interest category was better represented with 3, or 43 percent, of the 7 questionnaires returned. This comprises 19% of all returned.
There is much less agreement in this interest category on the relative importance of goal areas. None received a mean group importance rating of over 15, with Goal Area 4, Minimize Effect on Land Values, scoring the highest with 14.67. While two respondents scored this


85
goal at 20 as most important, the third gave it very-little importance at 4. The area of most agreement was Goal Area 3, Minimize Effect on Land Market with a standard deviation of 1.1 and a relative importance score of 13.67.
The Developer category rated Goal Area 5, Maximize Fairness Through Compensation, of the lowest importance. This is a surprising result of the poll as the researcher expected Developer interests to be more concerned with being paid for negative effects to their properties' value caused by restrictive land use controls.
The Public Planner category returned 100% of the 6 questionnaires mailed to them, comprising 38 percent of all returned. This category agreed highly on Goal Area 1 being the most important with a Mean Importance Score of
19.5 and standard deviation of only 0.73. Goal Area 7, Maximizing Permanence, is also highly important, scoring a 19. The least importance was given to Goal Area 4, Minimize Effect on Land Values, which still holds some degree of importance with a score of 10.5.
General observations. While some individuals used the full scoring range of 1 - 20, not all did. This may indicate differences in interpretation of scoring. The researcher intended the goal areas choices provided to be rated relative to each other using the full scoring range. Some respondents did not use the lower numbers (1


86
- 10) in scoring. Those respondents may have been doing one of two possible things: (a) interjecting additional goal areas which rated lower than those choices provided, resulting in median to high scores for choices provided; or (b) found all goal area choices provided to be aspects deserving much consideration in the study.


CHAPTER V
EVALUATION AND APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO DENVER'S PROPOSED AIRPORT
By incorporating the Mean Importance Scores for each Goal Area from the Delphi Poll results described in Chapter IV, it is possible to arrive at an Effectiveness Ranking of the alternative land use controls being studied for both the short-run and long-run. This evaluation is specific to the Denver proposed airport situation as it considers opinions of citizens, elected officials, developers, and public planners involved in that particular planning process.
5.1 The Evaluation Process
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 incorporate the Mean Importance Scores from results of the Delphi Poll shown in Table 4.6 with General Analysis of Abilities for Controls to Meet Goals in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 for the short-run (up to 5 years) and the long-run (6 to 20 years).
5.1.1 The Evaluation Matrices
The purpose of Tables 5.1 and 5.2 is three-fold:


TABLE 5.1 DIFFERENTIAL ANALYSIS OF CONTROLS TO MEET GOALS - Short Run
1 2 3 4 —5~ 6 7 8 9
IMPACT Minimize Maximize Minimize Minimize Maximize Minimize Maximize Maximize Protect
CATEGORY Housing Shared Effect Effect Fairness Implemen Perma- Enforce- Airport MEAN EFFECTIVE
GOAL . Units Respons- On Land on Land Through tation nence ability Invest- DIFFEREN- NESS RANK
AREAS Affected ibility Market Values Compen- Costs by ment TIAL
By Noise sation Airport
MEAN ..
IMPORTANCE 18.40 16.31 11.25 10.88 11.25 16.13 17.88 14.38 13.25
SCORES
II u II II II II II II II II II II ========= ========
LAND USE CONTROLS
1. Zoning Restrictions 20 15 11 7 1 19 15 1 15
DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 1.31 0.25 3.88 10.25 2.88 2.88 13.38 1.75 4.24 4
2. Property Acquisition 12 18 14 17 19 5 20 20 20
DIFFERENTIAL 6.40 1.69 2.75 6.13 7.75 11.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 5.59 6
3. Purchase
Development Rights 20 20 11 11 20 9 20 20 20
DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 3.69 0.25 0.13 8.75 7.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 4.00 2
4. Avigation Easements 20 20 15 10 17 13 20 20 20
DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 3.69 3.75 0.88 5.75 3.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 3.70 1
5. TDR'S 11 11 17 11 16 18 17 1 7
DIFFERENTIAL 7.40 5.31 5.75 0.13 4.75 1.88 0.88 13.38 6.25 5.08 5
6. Tax Incentives 11 11 13 9 19 20 11 1 9
DIFFERENTIAL 7.40 5.31 1.75 1.88 7.75 3.88 6.88 13.38 4.25 5.83 7
7. Perform. Standards 9 11 13 5 1 20 11 1 9
DIFFERENTIAL 9.40 5.31 ' 1.75 5.88 10.25 3.88 6.88 13.38 4.25 6.77 8
8. Capital Improvements 20 11 9 9 1 20 15 1 15
DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 5.31 2.25 1.88 10.25 3.88 2.88 13.38 1.75 4.80 3
========= -========= ========== ========== ========= ========== =========== : = = = = = = =
RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 = Excellent Ability/High Importance; 1 = Poor Ability/Low Importance
88


TABLE 5.2--DIFFERENTIAL ANALYSIS OF CUNTKULS TO MEET -GOALS - Long Run
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IMPACT- Minimize Maximize Minimize Minimize Maximize Minimize Maximize Maximize Protect
CATEGORY Housing Shared Effect Effect Fairness Implemen Perma- Enforce- Airport MEAN EFFECTIVE
GOAL Units Respons- On Land on Land Through tation nence ability Invest- DIFFEREN- NESS RANK
AREAS Affected ibility Market Values Compen- Costs by ment TIAL
By Noise sation Airport
MEAN
IMPORTANCE 18.40 16.31 11.25 10.88 11.25 16.13 17.88 14.38 13.25 •
SCORES
LAND USE — ========= —
CONTROLS
1. Zoning Restrictions 20 7 11 7 1 20 8 1 7
DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 9.31 0.25 3.88 10.25 3.88 9.88 13.38 6.25 6.52 6
2. Property Acquisition 11 19 11 17 19 11 20 20 20
DIFFERENTIAL 7.40 2.69 0.25 6.13 7.75 5.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 4.87 3
3. Purchase
Development Rights 20 20 11 12 19 11 20 20 20
DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 3.69 0.25 1.13 7.75 5.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 3.78 2
4. Avigation Easements 20 20 15 11 17 15 20 20 20
DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 3.69 3.75 0.13 5.75 1.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 3.39 1
5. TDR's 11 7 15 9 15 19 18 1 7
DIFFERENTIAL 7.40 9.31 3.75 1.88 3.75 2.88 0.13 13.38 6.25 5.41 4
6. Tax Incentives 7 7 5 9 19 20 4 1 5
DIFFERENTIAL 11.40 9.31 6.25 1.88 7.75 3.88 13.88 13.38 8.25 8.44 8
7. Perform.
Standards 9 7 9 5 1 20 7 1 5
DIFFERENTIAL 9.40 9.31 _ 2.25 5.88 10.25 3.88 10.88 13.38 8.25 8.16 7
8. Capital Improvements 20 7 7 7 1 20 11 1 13
DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 9.31 4.25 3.88 10.25 3.88 6.88 13.38 0.25 5.96 5
RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 = Excellent Ability/High Importance; 1 = Poor Ability/Low Importance
89


90
1. Basic to the evaluation is determination of the difference between the importance the Delphi experts attach to each goal area and the ability each land use control has to meet that goal. The result is called the DIFFERENTIAL. This calculation is based on the premise that when a particular land use control rates high in ability to meet the goal, and the goal is of great importance to the group polled, the DIFFERENTIAL will be low. Alternatively, if the goal is of little importance and the land use control rates low in ability to meet the goal, the DIFFERENTIAL will again be low. In either case, the land use control would be compatible to the rate of importance assigned to the goal.
For example, if Goal Area 1 is assigned a high Mean Importance Score of 20 and Land Use Control number 3 has a high ability score of 20 to meet Goal Area 1, the DIFFERENTIAL will be zero. This means the ability of the Purchase of Development Rights land use control converges to meet the most important needs of the community, which in this example is minimizing the number of housing units affected by aircraft overflight noise. If the DIFFERENTIAL were a large value such as 15 or 20, the ability of the land use control would diverge from meeting the particular community goal.
2. In order to determine how well each land use control meets all the goal areas based on their collective importance to the community as a whole, a MEAN


91
DIFFERENTIAL is found for each control. All DIFFERENTIAL values for each control are averaged to arrive at a single value representative of the degree of convergence or divergence between the ability of the land use control to meet all the goals and the importance assigned to them.
3. The final step in the analysis and evaluation is rating each land use control for its effectiveness in meeting the community goals by the importance assigned to those goals. This results in the EFFECTIVENESS RANKING are found in the last column of Tables 5.1 and 5.2 and represented graphically in Figure 5.1 for both the long-run and short-run.
5.1.2 Summary of the Evaluation Process
The entire process arriving at the final EFFECTIVENESS RANKING is summarized as follows:
1. Nine community goal areas were listed as indicated by the issues in airport development regarding aircraft noise impacts on residential neighborhoods.
2. A general analysis of the land use controls to meet the nine goal areas was performed using literature sources, academic knowledge, and results of questionnaires sent to professionals involved in land use planning in airport environs.
3. Statements were put to informed people representing major interests in airport environs planning for the proposed Denver airport. These statements solicited


RANKING
N
\
i
c
3
to CO
C* 06
00

ro
w
0 £
1 ts
w w
§1
co
Zoning
Property Acquisition
Purchase of Development Rights
C
W
M
O
O
25
H
W
C*
Avigation Easements
\ \ \ ' \ V \ K \ \ \ \ \ \ N
Ifi
TDR' s
O'
"r—r-G—r—r-r—^—
ummmammm
\ \ \ V

Performance Standards
00
Capital Improvement
FIGURE 5.1 EFFECTIVENESS RANKING


Full Text

PAGE 1

AN EVALUATION OF LAND USE CONTROLS TO PREVENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH NOISE IMPACT AREAS OF AIRPORT ENVIRONS by Susan Harrison May, 1987 ... .... :

PAGE 2

AN EVALUATION OF LAND USE CONTROLS TO PREVENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH NOISE IMPACT AREAS OF AIRPORT ENVIRONS by Susan Harrison B. S., Metropolitan State College, 1983 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the College of Architecture and Planning University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Planning and Community Development 1987

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Master of Planning and Community Development degree by Susan J. Harrison has been approved for the College of Architecture and Planning by Thomas A. Clark Herbert H. Smith Date ----------------------

PAGE 4

ABSTRACT Harrison, Susan J. (Masters of Planning and Community Development) An Evaluation of Land Use Controls To Prevent Residential Development in High Noise Impact Areas of Airport Environs Thesis directed by Associate Professor Thomas A. Clark Old and new residential neighborhoods are affected by aircraft overflight noise to the extent that complaints force airport authorities to take expensive reactive steps to mitigate the adverse impacts. Restric-tive zoning has been commonly used to avoid development of noise sensitive land uses, but has not proven to be effective enough. Proactive land use planning and iden-tification of effective means to control land uses are needed. None of the current literature found approached the control of land use from the standpoint of which method(s) meet an array of diverse community goals. There are a number of legal, economic, airport, and political issues regarding public control of land use from which the thesis develops a series of community goals. It is the purpose of the thesis to use these goals to evaluate various controls for long-term effec-tiveness in mitigating adverse aircraft noise impacts. The City of Denver is facing a dilemma of construct-ing a new airport while substantially reducing current

PAGE 5

ii levels of noise-affected residences. This study utilizes the Delphi technique to focus on Denver area community attitudes toward relative importance of each goal area. Short-and long-run evaluation applies the importance scores to academic analysis of the ability for each land use control to meet the goals. Data from existing land use control programs at major American airports are used in the analysis to the extent available. Recommendations are first made for the most effective land use controls in implementing a comprehensive environs land use plan for Denver's proposed airport. These are followed by general policy recommendations in implementing land use plans surrounding any airport where vast amounts of vacant land are available. The evaluation found Avigation Easements and Purchase of Development Rights to be the most effective land use controls for both the short-and long-run in the Denver situation. These both ranked highest in general application as well. Restrictive Zoning rated sixth in evaluation of the eight land use controls. The reasons for this are that zoning does not meet the goals of permanence, multijurisdictional cooperation, and enforceability by an airport authority.

PAGE 6

CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ••..••..••••.•••••. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................. 1 1.2 Background of Major Issues •...•••..•....• S II. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGY ••..••...... 20 2.1 Problem Statement .....•................. 20 2.2 Methodology ••••.•............••......... 23 2.3 Case Studies ..••••.•.•••••.••••.•••..•.. 29 2.4 Evaluation Method •....••••...•.........• 31 2.5 Goals Addressed by Land Use Control Strategies .....•.•.•••••...•••••.•••..•. 34 2.6 Constraints of the Study ••.......•.•••.• 35 III. LITERATURE SURVEY ••.•••••••••.•••••••••••••• 36 3.1 Federal Regulations ••••.........•.•.••.• 36 3.2 State Regulations .••••.•••..•••••....... 43 3.3 Local Strategies ..••..••.•.•.••••.....•• 45 IV. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE CONTROL STRATEGIES .••.................•••. 50 4.1 General Analysis .•.•....•..•..••.•...•.. SO 4.2 Results of Case Studies Questionnaire ... 59 4.3 General Analysis of Land Use Control .... 62 4.4 Application of Delphi Polling ..••....... 78 V. EVALUATION AND APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO DENVER'S PROPOSED AIRPORT .........••••...•• 87

PAGE 7

ii 5.1 The Evaluation Process ••••••••.••••••.•• 87 5.2 Evaluation of the Short-run ..••••••.•.•• 94 5.3 Evaluation of the Long-run ••••••••••.... 96 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS •••••.•••••••••....•.• 99 6.1 Restatement of the Problem •••.••••••.••• 99 6.2 Alternative Strategies •••••••••••••••.• 100 6.3 Community Goal Areas •••.••••••••••••••• 105 6.4 The Best Approach for Denver ••••••••••• 105 6.5 General Policy Recommendations •••••••.• 108 6.6 Defense of Original Thesis Statement .•. 111 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............••••.••••••.•••••••••••• 117 APPENDIX A. Airport Land Use Controls Questionnaire.120 B. Impact Categories Rating Sheet and Description of Land Use Controls •..•...• 125

PAGE 8

Ta le TABLES 4.1 General Analysis of Ability for Controls to Meet Goals-Short Run .••....••....•.•..•..• 52 4.2 General Analysis of Ability for Controls to Meet Goals-Long Run .............•......... 53 4.3 Summary of Questionnaire Results ..•.••••..•.•.• 60 4.4 Delphi Poll Mailing ..•.............•...••..••.• 80 4.5 Delphi Poll Returns •....•.••...•...•...•.••.••. 80 4.6 Results of Delphi Poll .••.•.••....••.......•... 81 5.1 Differential Analysis of Controls to Meet Goals Short Run .............................. 8 8 5.2 Differential Analysis of Controls to Meet Goa 1 s -Long Run ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8 9 6.1 General Analysis and Ranking of Ability for Controls to Meet Goals-Short Run .••.......•• 109 6.2 General Analysis and Ranking of Ability for Controls to Meet Goals-Long Run •.•••••..•••• 110

PAGE 9

FIGURES Fi ure 4.1 Delphi Poll Results ••....•.••.•••.••.•••.•••.••. 82 5.1 Effectiveness Ranking ..••.••..••...•.••.••••.••. 92

PAGE 10

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction Airport authorities across the United States are spending millions of dollars to mitigate negative noise impacts on surrounding existing residential neighborhoods. These expenditures include property acquisition, relocation of households, and noise insulation of homes. Many of these neighborhoods were built when the airports were small and before the use of jet technology which necessitated expansion of the airport and encroachment on the neighborhoods. Others have been built in close proximity to new jet serving airports in seeming disregard for aircraft noise impacts. An example of apparent disregard for aircraft noise impacts is recent construction of homes directly below the final landing approach to Denver's Stapleton International Airport east-west runway. These homes are being built where residents will be subjected to high levels of aircraft noise at the same time that money is being spent to mitigate high noise impacts in existing residential neighborhoods surrounding the airport.

PAGE 11

2 This is a paradox which raises two questions. The first is, why do new developments which are incompatible to airport operations continue to be approved, not only in the Stapleton vicinity, but near airports across the United States? Three possible answers come to mind. It may be due to real estate economics directing residential development down the path of least resistance, encouraging construction of homes on inexpensive land despite what the future social and environmental costs will be due to noise pollution. .It may be due to decision makers within the political structure giving in to pressure from land developers for the sake of improving the tax base. Or it may be due to ignorance of the consumers who buy homes near an airport ohly to discover later how disruptive the aircraft overflight noise can be to their lifestyles. The answer to this first question is undoubtedly a combination of all three possibilities. The second question raised is what can be done to avoid making the same mistakes in development of incompatible land uses in airport environs in the future? The answers to the first question provide insight into the means by which to help solve the problem. It is postulated that any past efforts at controlling the type of development in airport environs have failed due to economic and political pressures to develop on the urban fringe where the most financially viable land market

PAGE 12

3 exists. What is needed are land use controls with enough strength and permanence to withstand long-term political and development pressures in the interest of preserving the community quality of life and the public investment in the airport facility. Pressure from surrounding built-out residential neighborhoods to alleviate aircraft overflight noise can severely restrict the number of flights in and out of an airport and reduce its effectiveness in transportation and commerce. Finding the best solution to any land use conflict problem is usually very complex and involves years of testing before all implications are identified. Problem solving of this sort must be done in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, while protecting the investment in airports and their ability to operate and be economic stimulators for the areas they serve. A solution which simply removes the possibility of development through regulation can be very unpopular politically and have far-reaching adverse economic effects or legal fairness ramifications for private property owners. On the other hand, a solution which is very popular politically may be easily changed as politicians change and, therefore, not be a permanent solution. With the City of Denver in the process of planning a new international airport, there is tremendous opportunity to provide a model in planning comprehensively for compatible land uses in airport environs before real

PAGE 13

4 pressure for surrounding development begins. Denver and other involved jurisdictions are currently undertaking such comprehensive long-range land use planning in a unique display of cooperation. However, without practical and effective land use controls with which to implement the land use plan, even the best of plans may fail due to economic and political pressures. A literature search was conducted which revealed no work having been done in specifically evaluating possible land use controls for effectiveness in solving the long term problem. Some studies on airport siting and compatible land use issues refer only to the need for land use controls and suggest some as possibilities, but do not evaluate them in any respect. Other studies treat the airport noise and land use incompatibility problem from the reactive angle by evaluating techniques for abatement of existing noise impacts on existing residential neighborhoods. This thesis will treat the problem from a proactive planning standpoint by studying land use controls as a means of eliminating the possibility of incompatible land uses developing where aircraft noise is projected to exceed desirable levels. Examples used to illustrate points made in the thesis are primarily from the Denver airport situation. While some examples come from other airports, these airports are chiefly used as case studies of their land use

PAGE 14

5 control situations for the purpose of gathering primary comparative data for analysis and evaluation. 1.2 Background of Major Issues Development of a public facility with the tremendous impact on the community and region that an airport has raises uncountable issues. Described below are the primary issues involved in airport development which create the need for improved land use controls due to high noise impacts, or are raised as a result of land use control changes. It is important that each of these issues is addressed in making recommendations for public policy decisions regarding land use. 1.2.1 The Nature of Noise Effects It is not an intent of this thesis to study noise per se. A brief explanation of the complex nature of noise effect is adequate to understand the noise issue of airport land use incompatibility. Noise effect in general is composed of three ele-ments: loudness, length, and impact. The currently accepted method of measuring noise levels produced by airport operations is the LON, or Day/Night Average Level. This measures not only loudness, but also the length of noise, and expresses the results as levels of impact using contour lines. 1 1The LON is recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency as a standard for measurement of noise gener-

PAGE 15

6 A complication to the measurement of noise effects is the difference in people and their tolerance of noise. Environment is another complication. Regular background noise of an urbanized area will reduce the impact of air-craft noise, whereas the quiet of a rural town or farm will accentuate the noise impact. According to a study completed for the U. s. Environmental Protection Agency, the average noise level of suburban residential neighbor-hoods is comparable to the 50 LDN contour, noisy urban residential areas to 70 LDN, and rural areas 30 to 35 LDN2 . Differences in lifestyles, annoyance levels, miti-gation, economic importance of the airport, and the per-ceived responsiveness to noise complaints by the airport make any definition of compatibility subjective for the individual and for any community. Expression of noise using the LDN attempts to incor-porate this subjectiveness. By relating LDN contours to people's expected response to certain noise levels, the acceptability of noise exposure can be evaluated. ated from aircraft flight. The measurement technique is used for the purpose of determining the highest noise impact areas surrounding airports. Specifically, the LDN is a measure of the noise environment at a prescribed point over a 24-hour period, with a penalty given to sound which occurs in the normally quieter hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. It predicts, with a single number rating, the cumulative aircraft noise in the airport's environs. The measurements are an annual average, and do not reflect single noise events such as occur when aircraft must be diverted for a short time to a non-preferred approach path due to weather conditions. 2Larry w. Canter, Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw-Hill, 1977, p. 127.

PAGE 16

7 According to the Federal Aviation Administration and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, areas within LDN contours of 65 or greater are considered in-compatible with residential uses and would be expected to generate a high incidence of complaint3 • These are re-ferred to in this thesis as "high noise impact areas". The study of noiseeffects is a rapidly changing field and improvements in measuring noise are becoming more meaningful in how people perceive the impact. Time Above Analysis is a method now felt by many experts to be more accurate than the LDN contours approach. Time Above Analysis refers to how much total time during a 24-hour period a residence is exposed to noise over a certain decibel. Residents have expressed that this more accu-rately reflects the impact than LDN's, which are an an-nual average of events over certain decibels and do not consider single events of high decibel aircraft noise4 Improvements in aircraft technology to lessen the noise impact could reduce the restrictions on land uses in the future. With quieter engines and steeper ascents and descents possible, area within the LDN contours of 65 or greater would be reduced. This would open up more low 3Denver Regional Council of Governments, Southwest General Aviation Airport Site Selection/Master Plan/EIAR, July, 1979, p. 73. 4skip Spensley, Director, Denver's New Airport Development Office, telephone conversation, May 5, 1987.

PAGE 17

8 impact noise acreage for land uses previously incompati-ble with that location. 1.2.2 Incompatible Land Uses Due to Aircraft Noise Noise pollution is one of the most controversial effects connected with airport operations. The greatest impact of noise pollution is to residential land uses and related uses such as parks, schools, and libraries. When residential development has been allowed to occur in high noise impact areas surrounding airports, it is only a matter of time before the complaints and law suits di-rected at disruptive noise from takeoffs and landings begin to adversely affect airport operations. A study has shown that "five to seven million people are affected by airplane overflight noise in the United States".5 Denver's Stapleton International Airport is illus-trative of many airport operation/land use conflicts occurring across the United States. The problem has become very expensive as residential uses have been allowed to develop around the airport, the airport has grown in size, and larger, noisier airplanes have come into common use since its original construction in the 1930's. 5Richard F. Veazey, Chairman of DRCOG Aviation Technical Advisory Committee, Introductory Speech to DRCOG Airport Land Use Workshop, October 20, 1986.

PAGE 18

9 1.2.3 Airport Operation and Past Noise Litigation An analysis of legal precedents in airport noise litigation is important in selecting land use controls aimed at solving the noise impact problem. In the 1962 landmark case of Griggs v. County of Allegheny [(369 U.S. 84 (1962)], the Supreme Court placed the burden of lia-bility for airport noise on airport proprietors. It was determined that property is "taken" for public use as a result of airport noise, and the airport proprietors must compensate the property owner. The proprietor is liable because it is responsible for airport design and purchas-ing of land and air easements necessary to prevent air-port noise damage. Other cases held that when " ••• flights must be so low and so frequent that they cause a direct and immediate interference with the enjoy-ment and use of the land, ••• and damage must be substan-tial." [United States v. Causby, 328 u.s. 256 (1946)], and that physical invasion of the property's airspace was not necessary to constitute a "taking" [Aaron v. City of Los Angeles; 40 Cal. App. 3d 471, 115 Cal. Rptr. 162 (1974), cert. denied, 419 u.s. 1122 (1975)]. 6 With liability to airport proprietors established through litigation, airport owners have great incentive to solve the noise/land use incompatibility problem. A lawsuit filed by Park Hill neighborhood residents in 1981 6Bell, Robert B., Bell, Lisa M., "Airport Noise: Legal Developments and Economic Alternatives", Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 8 #4, 1980 pp. 614, 616, 617.

PAGE 19

10 against the City and County of Denver in response to ad-verse noise impacts resulted in an agreement whereby Denver would strive to alleviate noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. The steps to be taken by Denver include a noise mitigation study and policy, and to close Stapleton International Airport by the year 2000, locating a new airport "far removed from residen-tial communities inhabited by the plaintiffs". In imple-menting the noise mitigation policy, use of runways is modified, federally accepted noise level restrictions for aircraft monitored, and a Noise Complaint Office created7. Lawsuits from surrounding property owners and resulting restrictions placed on operation of the air-port, can be avoided through proper planning of new airports for future expansion and land use controls. 1.2.4 Economic Issues Local and state economic development. One may ask, why build a new airport near urban development and poten-tially expand the noise problem to affect more resi-dences? It is important to any city which desires to expand its economic growth base that it have an efficient and adequate airport which is easily accessible to the city. Many jobs rely on airport operations and spin-offs. 7civil Action No. 81-CV-2729, District Court, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, Amended Stipulation for Dismissal and Order, Judgment, and Decree, September 19, 1985, pp. 1-5.

PAGE 20

11 Using Denver as an example, airport spin-offs trans-lated into $3.1 billion of business revenue, $1 billion of personal income, and $114 million of state and local taxes for Colorado in 1985. Nine percent or 91,000 Colorado residents' jobs were related to passenger and air cargo activity at Stapleton8 • It is important to economic development of the Denver metropolitan region to be able to expand its air-port operations. Because of its unique geographical location, it is positioned as a potential central collec-tion point for the United States, and for the world as well. Denver is located equidistant between the Pacific Rim countries and the European continent. A larger air-port is needed if Denver wants to take advantage of non-stop flights to and from those points. A world class airport of this sort would change the image of Denver, increasing economic and cultural opportunities. If the function of the Denver airport is constrained by sur-rounding incompatible land uses or inability to grow, other airports such as Kansas City and Salt Lake City are waiting in line to take Denver's place in the international air industry9 8Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. and Browne, Bortz and Coddington, The Regional Economic Impact of Stapleton International Airport and Future Airport Development, The Colorado Forum, Sept. 9, 1986, p. 4, 8. 9Frank Gray, Denver New Airport Development Office, presentation to the Denver Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, October 24, 1986.

PAGE 21

12 Supply of developable land and property values. A balanced real estate market will be disrupted by public policy and location of a major public facility such as an airport. Public policy in controlling use of land has been shown to affect the supply of land for different uses, and, following elementary economic theory of supply and demand, affecting the sales value. As restrictions are placed on a parcel of land eliminating the possibility of residential development, the supply-of residential land is reduced, and its value increases. In the same way, if more land is made available for commercial and industrial uses, the value of this land decreases. The decision to build a public transportation facility will unmistakably have a positive effect on the value of parcels depending on the opportunity for development for certain uses. Due to future increased accessibility, land in the vicinity of a proposed airport increases in value each time it changes owners in a speculative market. 1.2.5 The Legal/Fairness Issue While some individual property owners may benefit from value increases in their land, others may suffer from value decreases. It has been postulated that the overall effect is not destruction of land values, but merely a shifting of land values from one parcel to another. While property owners don't complain when they can benefit from increased property values due to the

PAGE 22

13 location of a new airport, they will complain loudly if they perceive their property's value declining. Any public action involving land use must be scrutinized for potential litigation for diminished private property values. Just as presence of an airport can increase sur-rounding property values because of enhanced access, it can likewise decrease property values due to negative impacts such as aircraft overflight noise. This is most true for developed where air traffic has increased since construction of homes. Because of the positive effect land use controls impose on some properties and their negative effect on other properties, it has been proposed that those reaping profits due to the public action should redistribute some of this "windfall" to those less fortunate suffering "wipeout" due to the public action. 1.2.6 Direction of Growth and Population Pressures Major new airports have been found to be catalysts for regional economic growth which brings residential development with it10• Major business centers, mixed use developments, and open space/recreational facilities develop in close proximity to airports within what is 10Gennifer Sussman and Frank Gray, Implications of the Construction of Major New Airport Facilities for Eco nom1c Development in the Metro Denver Reg1on, Denver New Airport Development Office, September, 1986, p. 1.

PAGE 23

14 called the "airport influence area"11• Development within the influence area tends to reverse the typical pattern of lower density residential housing preceding commercial and industrial development on urban fringes. This reversal is due to "zoning in the airport environs and the type of demand created immediately by the air-port". Initial development is usually industrial and office parks or mixed commercial and residential use developments12• An employment base created by the air-port itself and support service sector spinoffs creates a demand for residential development in close proximity. Besides the economic attraction for residential development, there are characteristics of the airport locale itself which attract residential and commercial development. Airports must be located on relatively flat topography and will bring infrastructure improvements into previously raw land13• Since the cost of develop-ment is less on flat topography with existing infrastruc-ture, commercial and residential development will be attracted to it. Denver metropolitan area growth has historically been primarily to the northwest, southwest, and south-11The airport influence area is defined as "that area where commercial land uses, development patterns and real estate markets are significantly affected by the presence of" an airport (Brown, Bortz and Coddington, p. 4) • 12sussman, Gray, p. 13. 13 b'd 6 I 1 , p. •

PAGE 24

15 east. Planners feel the stage is set and the time is right for a major growth pattern to develop toward the northeast quadrant where the new airport is planned. The Denver Regional Council of Governments projects that one of the fastest-growing populations will center in north-eastern Adams County by the year 2010 as big gains in employment are seen surrounding the new airport14 Activity proving the theory of the airport as a growth catalyst is reported taking place in the case of the City of Aurora, a city adjacent to Denver. Pending final approval on the new airport, Aurora annexed 11,800 acres on the east side of the proposed airport in December, and its Planning Commission had approved a mixed use zoning for the acreage including 25,000 resi-dences and 86 million square feet of commercial and industrial projects by mid-January, 198716. While speculative buying and annexations occur before an airport is built, it has been shown that actual development takes years or decades to occur. This is due to the length of the "ripening process" of land on or near the urban fringe related to proximity to airports or other growth catalysts. While land lies vacant waiting 14Joni H. Blackman, "City's Future Rosy, New Study Predicts", Denver Post, Oct. 8, 1986, p. lB, 2B. 15Bill McBean, "11,800-acre Aurora Annexation Biggest Yet", Denver Post, Dec. 9, 1986, p. lB. 16Bill McBean, "Aurora OKs Mixed-Use Zoning for Land East of the New Airport", Denver Post, January 15, 1987, p. lB.

PAGE 25

16 for development and a population base to reach it, any land use controls which may have been imposed upon it when the airport opened could be removed during the passage of years. Land use controls must be examined for their permanence for this reason. 1.2.7 Political Issues Federal level. The Federal government encourages development of land use compatibility surrounding airports as a means of preserving the operational capacity of the airport. By planning ahead for compatible land use in each airport's environs, the safest and most efficient flight paths can be designed so as to not modify or disrupt operations to a great extent. The Federal Aviation Administration strives for consistent flight regulations airport to airport for clarity and the convenience of those airlines landing and taking off at numerous airports. By treating the problem on the ground with land use planning as influenced by flight paths, blanket flight regulations can be developed which fit the conditions of most airports rather than developing specific regulations for each airport. State level. State governments are interested in the ability of an international airport to operate to its fullest capacity, because in so doing, the economy of the entire state is enhanced.

PAGE 26

17 States do not generally get directly involved with land use decisions, because those are delegated to local jurisdictions. There are laws in some states which return various degrees of power in land use control decisions back to the state in cases where a large development has implications for more than one jurisdiction. An area surrounding a development can be declared "an area of statewide concern" by the state legislature, the governor and cabinet, or specially appointed land use commissions. Airports fall into this category of creating potential statewide concern. These political groups have review powers as well as varying degrees of input into the pattern of private development planned around an airport, which are capable of overriding local land development control. Local level multi-jurisdictional. Development of a new international airport involves a great many square miles of land. Because of this, the airport proper, spin-off development, and especially aircraft noise impacts will cross through numerous jurisdictions. Goals for airport spin-off economic development and minimization of noise impacts affecting each particular jurisdiction will be diverse and competitive. This situation presents a great challenge and opportunity for cooperative comprehensive land use planning where benefits can be maximized and negative impacts minimized for all jurisdictions. It presents a larger challenge for

PAGE 27

consistent enforcement of land use controls used to implement comprehensive planning. 18 The kinds of land use control powers delegated by states to local governments vary from state to state, and may limit the types of controls a local government may exercise. Among alternative land use controls available, those which an airport operator has to exercise are fee simple acquisition of noise impacted land, purchase of development rights, and avigation easements. Generally speaking, such as zoning, transfer of development rights, building codes, and tax incentives can only be implemented by local jurisdictions. 1.2.8 Airport Site Selection and Runway Configuration Airport site selection is a lengthy evaluative process with regional scope incorporating numerous physical, environmental, financial, and urban interrelationships factors. If land use patterns are laid out first, flights and the noise they produce cannot be easily directed away from them. While recent noise mitigation plans often include an adjustment of flight paths and rates of descent and ascent, there are limits to the amount of adjustments which can be made due to safety considerations. This thesis assumes that airport site selection has thoroughly considered the noise pollution factor in relation to urban development, and a site is chosen which presents opportunity for developing land uses which are noise compatible to the airport.

PAGE 28

19 Once the airport site is selected, configuration of runways can be determined. Among the factors entering into runway configuration analysis are prevailing weather patterns and the degree and type of urban development existing in the airport environs. The angle of descent and ascent of flight paths (or elevation of flight activ-ity) are governed by weather patterns and by aircraft design. The FAA reports that the majority of an airport's capacity constraints are. a result of local operating restrictions implemented by airport operators, rather th 1 k f d . 17 an a ac o runways an tax1ways To avoid unneces-sary flight restrictions in response to noise complaints, which reduce the capacity of an airport to operate most efficiently, delineation of compatible land use patterns should be secondary to runway and flight path determina-tions. This ideal would be possible if the proposed airport were surrounded by plenty of vacant land where urbanization would not be a factor in determining flight paths. 17American Association of Airport Executives, "Aviation News Briefs", Airport Report Newsletter, Alexandria, Va., Vol. XXXIII No. 5, March 1, 1987.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER II PROBLEM STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Problem Statement A high incidence of discomfort and complaint by surrounding residents in to aircraft overflight noise is present at many existing airports across the United States. Pressure in the form of litigation from residents threatens the operational capacity of these airports. It is expensive to correct the problem once it develops. Without a noise mitigation plan in place in Denver, it was estimated that in 1982 a total of 12,400 housing units and 34,300 people were exposed to noise within the 65 LDN contours of Stapleton International Airport. By modifying the preferential runway system and departure routings, the number of people affected within both noise contours decreased by 27%. The 9,060 homes remaining within contours over 65 LDN are candidates for improved noise insulation at a cost of $6,000 per unit or a total cost of $54,360,000. Housing units remaining within noise contours greater than 75 LDN (470 units) are

PAGE 30

21 candidates for property acquisition and relocation by the City of Denver at a total cost of $35,000,0001 • In order to prevent continued residential develop-ment in high nois. e impact areas of various airports, tra-ditional Euclidean zoning has commonly been used in the past. The reason for its popularity is that it requires no monetary investment and, therefore, is the most inex-pensive land use tool for this purpose. Zoning has not proven itself as an effective means of restricting resi-dential development, however. Because zoning is initi-ated by political decision-making bodies, it is subject to change as individual decision makers change over time, or as economic goals of the jurisdiction change. It is estimated that approximately 18,000 people now live within the 65 LDN contour of the Dallas-Fort Worth Inter-national Airport where "iron clad" multi-jurisdictional agreements prohibited residential development as ini-tially dictated by the comprehensive plan for the airport environs. Many existing airports have developed noise mitiga-tion plans in an attempt to reduce noise impacts on sur-rounding residential neighborhoods. In situations where neighborhoods developed years ago around relatively small airports according to today's standards, and airport op-erations have since expanded, reactive mitigation plans 1Harris, Miller, Miller, and Hanson, Inc., Final Noise Report and Noise Mitigation Plan for Stapleton International Airport, March, 1984, pp. 21, 22, 24, 26.

PAGE 31

are the best solution. Because of the high costs involved in implementing these plans, however, reactive methods should not be depended on in the future. 22 Master plans for new airports which are designed to be proactive to the problem of noise incompatible land uses do not specifically identify how to control land use in carrying out the plans. With planning for compatible land uses must come the foresight of establishing the means by which to implement plans. Without a choice of thoroughly evaluated practical land use control tools, the best of plans may fail due to economic and political pressures. It is the purpose of this thesis to evaluate the political, economic, and legal implications of various proactive land use control strategies. In the thesis, land use controls with the most potential for preventing residential development in high noise impact areas of airport environs will be identified. The identified controls will be evaluated for their political; economic, and legal implications and past success rates as permanent controls using a cost-effectiveness type of framework. Input from citizens, developers, planners, and elected officials at the Denver situation will be solicited and incorporated into the evaluation framework for demonstration of the effectiveness in a specific problem location. Finally, broader policy recommenda-

PAGE 32

23 tions for use of selected land use controls in planning of any airport will be stated. 2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 Thesis Hypotheses There are two hypotheses set out to be proven in the thesis: 1) Traditional zoning is not the most effective land use control tool for preventing residential development in the high noise impact areas of airports. 2) Proactive land use control tools which are more effective than traditional Euclidean zoning can be implemented to prevent residential development in the high noise impact environs of airports. 2.2.2 Assumptions of the Study This study is conducted under some basic assumptions regarding the aircraft noise issue: 1) Aircraft overflight noise creates a negative impact for residential neighborhoods. While the negative impact can be substantiated by statistics as affecting some people, it must be assumed that the complaint rate from these people expresses a problem which creates a public welfare issue of sufficient dimensions to warrant major efforts at finding solutions. 2) Airport authorities are serious about working with communities to solve aircraft noise problems. 3) The community should have input into finding amicable solutions to aircraft noise problems.

PAGE 33

24 2.2.3 Delphi Technique The Delphi technique, developed by Norman C. Dalkey for the Rand Corporation, will be used to poll experts for the political judgment element of the analysis. These will be expressed as constituent Group Importance Scores. The purpose of the poll will be to determine a merged group attitude toward perceived benefits and trade-offs of each land use control strategy based on economic and past effectiveness information, and knowl-edge of constituents' 2.2.3.a Characteristics of the Delphi Method. A major characteristic of the Delphi method is that it strives to find "better" rather than "right" or "best" solutions under the "n-heads" rule. This says that in dealing with an issue where the best information or data available is the judgments of a group of knowledgeable individuals with diverse backgrounds or interests, their cumulative response is more accurate than the response of only one individual2 . The Delphi method is further based on the belief that humans have the ability to put numerical judgments of relative importance on life values. These numbers are very useful for the purpose of quantifying the intangible relative intensity of human perceptions into data for 2Norman C. Dalkey, Daniel L. Rourke, Ralph Lewis, and David Snyder, Studies in the Quality of Life -Delphi and Decision Making, Lex1ngton Books, Lex1ngton, Ky., 1972, p. 4.

PAGE 34

25 analysis. Experiments testing the validity of the method have convinced Dalkey that these subjective estimates approach physical measurement in both precision and reli-ability. 2.2.3.b Criteria for Selection of Delphi. The Delphi method was chosen under the criteria of providing anonymity, controlled feedback, and a statistical group response. It provides a means of focusing on the intan-gible value judgments of a large diverse population through systematic group judgment of issues, which cannot be decided solely on the basis of hard data or theories. As the time frame and funding for this study were limited, the Delphi method met the additional criteria of providing a quick and inexpensive method of estimating these group judgments. Anonymity. Anonymity of responses is necessary in order to discourage the effect of dominant individuals on other respondents. Controlled experiments performed by Dalkey in developing the Delphi technique found that the median of judgments made anonymously and independently is more accurate than consensus formed in a face-to-face meeting, apparently due to the effect of dominant individuals in a group discussion3 • 3Donald M. McAllister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning -Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic, and Pol1t1cal Trade-offs, MIT Press, Cambr1dge, Mass., 1980, p.218.

PAGE 35

26 Impact Category Rating Sheets were distributed to people knowledgeable on the issue of airport noise and incompatible land use. This is the New Airport Citizen Advisory Committee for Denver consisting of representa-tives from the number of jurisdictions affected by devel-opment of a new airport. The Rating Sheets were mailed to each member individually with ground rules that they must be answered without consultation with other members. They were then mailed back by each individual to the researcher. Controlled feedback. In order to reduce inaccura-cies of cumulative group response, two rounds of polling are encouraged by Dalkey. According to his controlled experiments, accuracy of responses improves with iteration4. Divergent responses should converge to a more accurately estimated set of data as each member is given the results of how the group as a whole answered the questions5 • On the other hand, Donald M. Mcallister suggests that in applications where weighted value judgments are being estimated, one iteration can be sufficient. He states that previous research has not been able to verify that the correctness of value judgments has increased 4Dalkey, Rourke, Lewis, and Snyder, Studies in the Quality of Life -Delphi and Decision Making, Lexington Books, Lexington, Ky., 1972, p. 22. 5Ibid. p. 35.

PAGE 36

27 through repeated polling with controlled feedback6 • Only one iteration was used in this research application. Statistical definition of group response. By defin-ing the numerical responses of each member within a sta-tistical framework, two useful groups of data emerge. The first is the combined group response of each impact expressed as a median value which makes it possible to use the responses in a Cost-effectiveness evaluation. The second group is the degree of spread of individual responses retained through graphs or expressed in stan-dard deviations which, according to Dalkey, reduce the effect of group pressure to conform. 2.2.3c Weaknesses of the Delphi method. Critics of the Delphi method charge that the Delphi results are un-trustworthy because questions used are not objectively designed or tested for validity. It is therefore not recommended for rigorous scientific research where abso-lute values must be obtained. The critics do admit, how-ever, that the method does have value as a guidance tool in evaluation and decision making where techniques for exact measurement of study elements such as human values have not been accomplished7 • 6Mcallister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning -Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic, and Political Trade-offs, pp. 218. 219. 7Harold Sackman, Delphi Critique -Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process, Lex1ngton Books, Lexlngton, Mass., 1975, p. 3.

PAGE 37

28 Another weakness is in questioning a representative of a large number of people. Responses are intended to incorporate constituent opinions as perceived by a representative. This carries the unavoidable danger of misinterpretation of opinions and bias on the part of the representative. In addition, the representative probably will express the dominant opinion or a compromised opinion as not all opinions can be expressed in one individual's final response. These weakness are not viewed as a problem in arriving at accurate data in this study because the attributes of the method outweigh the weaknesses. It should be understood that any study dealing with the human element cannot be exact. The human judgment value measurements derived from this study are expected to be accurate estimations of conditions at the time and for the location. These results would be expected to vary, however, if different people (or even the same people) were tested at a different location or at a different time due, to the uncertainties of human nature and differing locational conditions. The Delphi method does provide a means of focusing on the vital political and intangible elements in this study where exact measurements are not possible. Without means of consulting users of the system, the researcher would be forced to interject values not necessarily representative of the users.

PAGE 38

29 2.3 Case Studies In order to gather information on the effectiveness of land use controls in preventing residential development in high noise impact areas of airports, various existing airports which have made past attempts in this respect were selected for study. A questionnaire was sent to professionals involved with development of the land uses in the environs of these airport as a means of gathering information for analysis. 2.3.1 Criteria for Selection of Case Studies Criteria for selection of airports dealt with similarity of the airport frequency of flight activity to the new airport planned for Denver and their use of innovative land use controls. An attempt was made to first select airports with a similar level of air transport activity, size, and function for ease of comparison. This was simplified as selection progressed, however. As methods of projecting activity into the future and those future dates may vary from one airport to another, cur-rent activity figures were used. In addition, size became less important in order to meet a second criterion that the airport has on record the application of innovative land use controls. By consulting a recent survey on noise control strategies published by the Federal Aviation Administration, four airports were selected which met both criteria

PAGE 39

30 of similar size or function and use of innovative land use controls. One other was selected for its use of a single unique land use control rather than for its simi-larity in size or flight activity to Denver's new airport. 2.3.2 Criteria for Selection of Questions Asked A four-page questionnaire was mailed to a total of nine professionals involved in development of land uses surrounding each area. The professionals selected are from the economic development and urban planning fields and are knowledgeable in the use and implications of the land use control tools implemented surrounding their respective airports. The first group of criteria used in designing the questionnaire was aimed at encouraging timely and accu-rate responses. The questionnaire needed to be as short and concise as possible. Another criterion was that it offer choices for quick selection of answers and allow estimations, reducing the necessity for lengthy research by the respondent. The second group of criteria dealt with content of information being sought. The questionnaire needed to address the following aspects of the land use control tools: 1) definition of the land use control tool 2) long-term effectiveness 3) economic implications 4) reasons for success/failure 5) costs of implementation

PAGE 40

31 A final criterion was that the answers be in a form which would allow standardization for input into a costeffectiveness framework. 2.4 Evaluation Method An adaptation of cost-effectiveness evaluation was used to evaluate data gathered from the questionnaire in the case studies, literature, and Delphi polling. The actual method used here will be called Differential Analysis and is outlined in Section 2.4.1. It borrows many of the attributes of cost-effectiveness evaluation. 2.4.1 Criteria for Selection of,Evaluation Method The function of an evaluation process is to evaluate proposed public actions based on the consequences to users of end results. If implications of each proposed strategy is reported in the evaluation, decision makers can make informed judgments in final selection of a strategy. To assure that the evaluation method has the ability to evaluate strategies of controlling land use based on the consequences for end results, the following criteria must be met: Reflecting the Values of the Users. Donald McAllister emphasizes the importance of reflecting the values of all people affected by a proposed public action within the evaluation. He encourages the use of citizen

PAGE 41

32 participation in being certain these values are ad-dressed, and that a sufficient number of qualified per-sons be consulted for judgments to assure accurate responses8 • This criteria is fulfilled by incorporating results of the Delphi polling of the Denver New Airport Citizens Advisory Committee to incorporate diverse polit-ical goals regarding the land use control strategies. Standardization of Data. Both intangible informa-tion and easily quantified data must be placed within a common scale of measurement for comparison of all elements of the analysis. The cost-effectiveness method as proposed by Dr. Tom Clark of the University of Colorado at Denver provides for applying standardized quantification and weighting of less tangible human elements, such as political goals, for use with more tangible elements9 , such as dollar costs, acreages, and housing units. While this study does not consider tangi-ble elements, there is a need to standardize the Delphi Poll results with the ability ratings for each land use control to meet the specified goals. If costs of land or acreages were to be used in a subsequent evaluation, 8Mcallister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning -Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic, and Political Trade-offs, pp. 39, 40. 9Thomas Clark, "Cost Effectiveness Analysis", unpublished, 1985, Chapter 6 -Strategies and the Evaluation of Alternatives.

PAGE 42

33 these can be easily added into the framework developed in this study. 2.4.2 Summary of Differential Analysis and Evaluation Step 1. Outline each alternative strategy including measured short-run and discounted long-run impacts of each. Impacts are the difference between future ends if the strategy were implemented, and the future ends if not implemented. The impacts in this study translate into the ability of each land use control to meet nine goal areas outlined in Section 2.5. Step 2. Feed this information to panel of experts and perform Delphi polling for each alternative Step 3. Results of Delphi polling become numerical Importance Scores of each alternative Step 4. Standardize the Ability Scores and Importance Scores to alleviate the effect of the different metrics used in measurement. Step 5. Find the Differential or difference between Importance Scores and Ability Scores for each land use control within each goal area for both the long-run and short-run. Step 6. Find the mean Differential for each land use control for both long-run and short-run. Step 7. Rank the mean Differentials: The lower the Differential value, the closer each land use control comes to meeting each goal area, based on the importance

PAGE 43

of that goal area to Residents, Developers, Elected Officials, and Public Planners combined. 2.5 Goal Areas Addressed by Land Use Control Strategies The basis for impact categories selected in the Delphi polling and elements of the analysis in Chapter Four is composed of three major goal areas, each with 34 subgoals. These were selected as typical goals for com-munities after review of aircraft noise issues described in Chapter I. Ideally speaking, it is desirable that all community goals be met. In reality, however, this is not possible as some goals will conflict with others. For this reason, the goals are given weights of relative community importance in the Delphi polling. 2.5.1 Public Welfare/Quality of Life 1) Minimize number of people affected by aircraft overflight noise. 2) Maximize inter-jurisdictional sharing of responsibility in preventing development of land uses incompatible to airport operation. 3) Maximize fairness through compensation for property value loss. 2.5.2 Economic 1) Provide market demand/supply balance of land available for various uses. 2) Minimize windfall for wipeout situations in the land market. 3) Minimize implementation costs of land use controls.

PAGE 44

2.5.3 Effectiveness of Land Use Control 1) Find permanent solutions to the land use incompatibility problem. 2) Find enforceable solutions to the land use incompatibility problem. 3) Protect monetary investment in airport facility and operations. 2.6 Constraints of the Study 35 The application of this study to an on-going plan-ning effort with the highly dynamic characteristics and controversial issues posed for a new airport in the City of Denver poses problems in gathering information for analysis. Decisions are being made and new problems arising on a regular basis, some of which are related to the land use incompatibility issue. Because of the highly political nature of the project, careful consider-ation must be given to how some information is gathered, sometimes limiting opportunities. Because implementation of public controls is a highly complex area of interrelated issues, absolute delimitation of elements is difficult. Measurements of human values and judgments, and projections of property values and the costs of implementation of controls over the long term are not geared to absolute quantification. A benefit of using a modified cost-effectiveness evalua-tion model is that different values can be plugged into it as conditions change through the long-or short-run.

PAGE 45

CHAPTER III LITERATURE SURVEY Approaches to addressing the negative noise impact of airports range from the very broad federal environmental assessments, to state review, regional cooperation, and very focused local government efforts in implementation of specific land use controls. Federally mandated environmental assessments serve the purpose of identifying the impacts but do nothing to remove the impact. States may attempt to exert control over the kinds of land use controls to be used in reducing the extent of negative noise impacts, but do not have the authority over how effectively the controls are administered. It is the local government level where actual noise abatement can be effectuated. 3.1. Federal Regulations 3.1.1 NEPA -Environmental Considerations The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 broadly addresses environmental impacts from federally funded projects. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that balanced decision making occurs in the total public interest through an interdisciplinary evaluation of

PAGE 46

37 anticipated consequences of "major Federal actions sig-nificantly affecting the quality of the human environment"1. The term "major actions" is not defined in the Act, but has been interpreted by lead agencies through comparison of predicted impacts with environmental qual-ity standards by project type. The general interpreta-tion has been summarized to include actions: 1. That are likely to have a significantly adverse impact on natural ecological, cultural, or scenic resources of national, state, or local significance. 2. That are likely to be highly controversial regarding relocation of housing resources. 3. That divide or disrupt an established community; disrupt orderly, planned development; are inconsistent with plans or goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located; or cause increased congestion. 4. That involve inconsistency with any national, state, or local standard relating to the environment; have a significantly detrimental impact on air or water quality or on ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; involve a possibility of contamination of a public water supply system; or affect g2oundwater, flooding, erosion, or sedimentation. Development of an airport falls within the scope of the above criteria as a "major action". The Environmen-tal Impact Statement process included in NEPA identifies and evaluates the noise impacts on the human environment 1The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, PL 91-190, 91st Congress, s. 1075, Jan. 1, 1970. 2Larry W. Canter, Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw-Hill, 1977, p. 5.

PAGE 47

38 from aircraft overflight. The evaluation process3 as applied to airport projects might consists of: 1. Discussion of proposed alternatives to the pro-posed project including a "no-action" alternative of impacts from not building an airport. 2. Long term effects on future generations for beneficial use of the environment affected by the con-struction of an airport. Short-term addresses construe-tion phases, while long-term effects address operational life of the airport such.as future expandability of the airport. 3. Irreversible loss of resources resulting from construction of an airport. This addresses changes in land use and monetary expenditures involved. "The number of residences located within and subject to relocation within the airport influence area and land use compati-bility studies of areas adjacent to the airport project are considered. The Environmental Impact Statement is used as an informational tool to bring to the attention of all interested parties the potential negative effects of development of an airport. While it will identify the extent of noise impacts, noise sensitive areas, and suggest mitigation measures, it is not intended to preclude airport development. It is the responsibility 3canter, Environmental Impact Assessment, McGrawHill, 1977, pp. 6-8.

PAGE 48

39 of the Federal Aviation Administration to declare an EIS adequate in respect to the dissemination of information regarding impacts of the project. It is the responsibility of the airport authority to mitigate the negative impacts identified in the EIS as part of the balanced planning process in the public interest. However, it is not required by law that the airport authority follow the specific recommendations of the Environmental Impact Statement. 3.1.2 FAR Part 36 Program Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36 addresses the aircraft overflight noise issue from the standpoint of aircraft technology and controlling noise at the source. Part 36 requires all subsonic jet powered aircraft to comply with certain noise level criteria if the aircraft was certified after December 1, 1969. Noise contours are projected to shrink by year 2020 due to this legislation. This has been called a "technical fix" which is quicker, easier, and more predictable than "social engineering", alternatives such as land use controls. Critics claim that Part 36 has not effected improvements in new aircraft design as quickly as intended because of time extensions being granted. With the time lag involved in antiquation and replacement of aircraft with those meeting Part 36 standards, the law does not produce immediate reduction in the extent of noise impact. Furthermore, the number of scheduled flights has

PAGE 49

40 increased to counteract any decreases in noise levels as required by Part 364 • 3.1.3 FAR Part 150 Program for Noise Mitigation Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 was created out of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. Responsibility was placed with the Federal Aviation Administration to assist airport operators in planning for land use compatibility with surrounding communities. Approval of a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program is required for receiving federal grants for noise abatement or mitigation projects. A benefit of the program is an-ticipated reduction in the liability for noise generated by the airport. The FAR Part 150 Program established guidelines for voluntary identification by airport authorities of noise and land use incompatibility. Standard land use compati-bility criteria within LDN contours are established for the program to assure consistent treatment of noise sen-sitive activities and areas. In summary, these criteria state that residences, hospitals, churches, auditoriums, and schools are not compatible within the 65 or greater LDN contours unless properly sound insulated. Residences and schools are not recommended and are strongly discour-aged. Commercial, industrial, and recreational uses are 4Robert B. Bell, Lisa M. Bell, "Airport Noise: Legal Developments and Economic Alternatives", Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 8, #4, 1980, pp. 637, 638.

PAGE 50

• • 42 to high noise impact areas of airports in granting mort-gage loans. The criteria used by HUD in determining land use compatibility and the need for sound insulation is the same as that used by the FAA in its Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Program. 3.1.5 Military Installation Compatible Use Zones Federal military bases are in the process of imple-menting Installation Compatible Use Zone programs for the purpose of decreasing the aircraft noise impact on sur-rounding communities. Fort Knox and Fort McClellan are currently turning out progress review reports on their programs, but these were not yet available at the time of this writing. A civil engineering masters thesis from the University of Florida does provide a summary of the scope of the program, however. The 1985 thesis looked at the problem of incom-patible land uses due to noise generated from airbases entirely from the military angle, which in some respects has similarities to a public airport situation. For instance, the military often must deal with a number of jurisdictions in implementing corrective measures to assure compatible land uses6 , as must public airports. Only three land use controls were considered in the thesis: Specialized Zoning, Restrictive Easements, and 6James E. Owens, "An Overview of Compatible Land Use Planning Techniques for Military Air Installations", Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Civil Engineering Dept., Summer, 1985, pp. 62-68.

PAGE 51

43 Land Purchase. Each control was summarized for definition, means of implementation, permanence, and ease of enforcement by the military. The thesis did not evaluate the controls from the political, economic, or public interest aspect. 3.2 State Regulations 3.2.1 Environmental Policy Acts Some states have legislated environmental policy acts which can be more stringent than the federal version. They are basically patterned after NEPA in purpose and process, but are applicable to state funding for projects. 3.2.2 Areas of Statewide Importance The American Law Institute provides in A Model Land Development Code as a means for states to have final decision-making power over certain kinds of land areas and developments. State review of some local powers is justified by problems presented when more than one local jurisdiction is affected by a large project such as a regional airport. Within the process, an independent board reviews appeals of local decisions by comparing detriments and benefits of the development. Impacts on surroundings and the need for the development in a particular location are considered. Accompanying this review is a review of Areas of Critical State Concern whereby the state does

PAGE 52

not implement land use controls but has supervisory jurisdiction over the content of the local land use controls. 44 Designation .of an airport as an Area of Critical State Concern kicks in review of the facility for its effect on the local economic system. Adjacent private development may likewise be reviewed under the designation for its effect on the efficient operation of the airport, protecting any state investment in the facility. A weakness in the Critical Areas process is that it is only an appeal process. An airport site may be selected under the NEPA process and adjacent land uses planned. The adjacent area may then be designated a Critical Area and the land use plans appealed to the state board. State control over adjacent development is complicated by the fact that the state had no input into the earlier decision of the siting of the airport. This can be a major problem because of the growth inducing effect on adjacent areas an airport has. Another weakness is the omission of authority for the state to exercise power over existing local comprehensive plans even after a Critical Area has been designated. Unless local jurisdictions cooperate by revising their comprehensive plans to reflect the intentions of the designation, the plan may continue to guide development in a manner not consistent with the designation. In addition, the state is only authorized to review and

PAGE 53

45 amend local land use control regulations. Implementing the regulations is left in the hands of the local jurisdiction. This presents a problem because of local inter-pretation of the regulations when reviewing individual development proposals on a case-by-case basis. Over a period of time, interpretations may be inconsistent with the Critical Areas designation purpose7 • While the Critical Areas process is intended to address impacts of a broad, far-reaching nature, it seems that this characteristic.has potential to defeat its pur-pose. The act of implementing land use controls within airport environs under this process is also broad, and consistent implementation success across the diverse realm of multi-jurisdictional situations is limited. 3.3 Local Strategies 3.3.1 Site Selection and Configuration of Runways Development of a new airport at Denver serves as a good illustration of the time, effort, evaluation, and people involved in site selection. Potential noise impacts on urban development is a large consideration in the evaluation. The need for a new or enlarged airport at Denver was first officially identified in 1975. There havebeen numerous studies conducted since then under co-7Daniel R. Mandelker, "Critical Area Controls: A New Dimension In American Land Development Regulation", Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 41, January, 1975, pp. 21-32.

PAGE 54

46 ordination of the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the City of Denver with the purpose of identifying a site which met a myriad of environmental, economic, topographic, and social criteria. These were the Metro Airport Study Phases I and II begun in 1978, Potential Expansion of Stapleton International Airport into the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Final Report, 1982, Metro Airport Study Phase III and Final Report, 1983, Alternate Configurations for a New Airport Final Report, 1985, and New Airport Master Plan Study. Site Selection Study, 1986. Aircraft noise levels, generalized future noise impact areas, and land use control strategies were among the considerations of each of these studies. The Site Selection Study went a step further in evaluating the economic and social effects relating to land use changes as well as potential for problems in implementing land use controls and managing growth for each alternative airport site. This evaluation was done in a broad sense without evaluating specific land use controls. 3.3.2 Local Inter-Governmental Agreements The City of Denver in its planning for a new airport serves as an excellent example of local level efforts at solving the residential incompatibility problem with airports. Denver wishes to reduce the pressure from surrounding residential neighborhoods and jurisdictions regarding negative aircraft noise impacts. Because Denver must annex land to locate a new airport, there is

PAGE 55

47 added incentive to cooperate with adjacent jurisdictions on the noise issue in order to win a vote allowing annex-ation of land into Denver. Surrounding jurisdictions can gain opportunities for economic development by furthering any effort towards development of a new airport. With promise of reduced noise impact and an enhanced economy, all players can benefit from inter-governmental agree-ments drawn up between Denver, Adams County, Commerce City, and Aurora. Under the agreements, each jurisdiction has the opportunity to evaluate airport layout, noise impact pro-jections, rules and flight paths, transportation access corridors,. and other social and environmental impacts. Since the airport is planned to be located in Adams County, representatives of that jurisdiction were allowed strong input into the decision of selecting the best runway configurations under criteria for minimizing or removing noise impacts on existing residential neighborhoods8. Also included in the inter-governmental agreements is the stipulation that all jurisdictions will work together to develop a comprehensive plan to guide devel-opment of compatible land uses within the new airport influence area. 8Robert Kowalski, "Adams Officials Endorse Runway Plan For New Airport", Denver Post, Dec. 17, 1986, p. lB.

PAGE 56

48 While the inter-governmental agreements expose the needs of each jurisdiction regarding minimizing aircraft noise impacts, they stop short of defining actual means of meeting those needs by preventing incompatible land uses. With multi-jurisdictional comprehensive land use planning under way, the most cost-effective means of implementing the plan must be selected. 3.3.3 Local Government Reference Guide The California Department of Transportation in 1983 commissioned preparation of a reference guide for planning compatible land uses surrounding airports9 • The scope of the guide is similar to the guidelines set out in the federal Part 150 Program in defining noise impact areas, setting noise compatibility guidelines for various land uses, and recommending sound insulation. While there is no cost/effectiveness evaluation of possible land use controls to be used in a land use com-patibility program, the study does consider the effect of noise on the surrounding community. Results of a study analyzing community reaction to intrusive noise are given • . Using the rate of complaints from residents within each defined LDN noise contour, it was determined that a distinctly positive relationship exists between 9Airport Land Use Planning Handbook -A Reference and Guide for Local Agencies, prepared for the California Dept. of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, July, 1983.

PAGE 57

49 community reaction to aircraft noise and higher LON noise levels.

PAGE 58

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE CONTROL STRATEGIES The various land use control strategies to be evalu-ated are analyzed below in general application to airport environs land use, and the results summarized in two matrices, Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Strategies are rated for their relative abilities in meeting the nine stated goal areas in both the short-run (up to five years) and the long-run (6 to 20 years). Results of the Delphi polling are then presented as analysis of community weighted importance of each goal area. 4.1 General Analysis The thesis hypotheses state that traditional Eu-clidean zoning is not the most effective land use control tool for preventing residential development in high noise impact areas of airports, and there are land use controls which would be more effective. The land use controls se-lected for this analysis were chosen based on their repu-tations as generally successful innovative tools in vari-ous applications. Some of the controls have been in use for many years; others are so new that practicing tech-

PAGE 59

51 niques are still being perfected. The Federal Aviation Administration has published a description of a number of land use controls applicable to airport compatibility planning in conjunction with the FAR Part 150 Program. Some of the content below is taken from those descriptions1. The General Analysis of Abilities for Controls to Meet Goals in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 summarize the following text of general analysis. A numerical rating scores each land use control for relative adequacy in meeting the nine goal areas used in the evaluation as stated in Chap-ter Two. These are more thoroughly defined as Elements of the Analysis in Section 4.1.1 below. All goal areas are considered independently of each other in every case but the last (see ELEMENTS OF THE ANALYSIS, 9. Protect Airport Investment) • This analysis applies to general land use applica-tions across the United States. Ratings are based on a number of sources including the researcher's academic knowledge of land use and economics, expert opinions in literature of the field, and the use of the results of the Case Studies Questionnaire as a general guide. Results of the questionnaire are shown in Table 4.3 and discussed in Section 4.2. 1Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports, Advisory Circular, AC 150/5020-1, Federal Aviation Administration, August 5, 1983.

PAGE 60

IMPACT CATEGORY GOAL AREAS 1 Minimize Housing Units Affected By Noise 2 3 4 Maximize Minimize Minimize Shared Effect Effect ResponsOn Land on Land ibility Market Values 5 Maximize Fairness Through Compensation 6 7 Minimize Maximize Implemen Perma-tation nence Costs 8 Maximize Enforceability by Airport 9 Protect Airport Invest-ment ============ ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========= ======== ======== LAND USE CONTROLS 1. Zoning I Restrictions 2. Property I Acquisition 3. Purchase Development Rights 4. Avigationl Easements 5. TOR's 6. Tax Incentives 7. Perform. Standards 8. Capital 20 15 12 18 20 20 20 20 11 11 11 11 9 11 ABILITY SCORES I I 11 7 1 19 15 1 15 14 17 19 5 20 20 20 11 11 20 9 20 20 20 15 10 17 13 20 20 20 17 11 16 18 17 1 7 13 9 19 20 11 1 9 13 5 1 20 11 1 9 Improvements 20 11 9 9 1 20 15 1 15 ============I================================================================================= RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 = Excellent ability; 1 = Poor Ability to meet goals 52

PAGE 61

TABLE 4.2 GENERAL ANALYSIS OF ABILITY FOR CONTROLS TO MEET GOALS -Long Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IMPACT Minimize Maximize Minimize Minimize Maximize Minimize Maximize Maximize Protect CATEGORY Housing Shared Effect Effect Fairness Implemen PermaEnforce-Airport GOAL Units Res ponsOn Land on Land Through tation nence ability Invest-AREAS Affected ibility Market Values Campen-Costs by ment By Noise sat ion Airport ============= ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========== ======== ======== LAND USE CONTROLS ABILITY SCORES 1. Zoning I I Restrictions 20 7 11 7 1 20 8 1 7 2. Property I Acquisition 11 19 11 17 19 11 20 20 20 3. Purchase Development Rights 20 20 11 12 19 11 20 20 20 4. Avigationl Easements 20 20 15 11 17 15 20 20 20 5. TOR's 11 7 15 9 15 19 18 1 7 6. Tax Incentives 7 7 5 9 19 20 4 1 5 7. Perform. Standards 9 7 9 5 1 20 7 1 5 8. Capital Improvements 20 7 7 7 1 20 11 1 13 ============1========1========1========1========1========1========1=========1========1======== RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 = Excellent Ability; 1 = Poor Ability to meet goal 53

PAGE 62

54 4.1.1 Elements of the Analysis There are nine elements of the analysis which correspond to the nine goal areas. The scope of each is described below as they apply to the general adequacy analysis. 1. Minimize number of housing units affected by noise. The overriding goal in airport noise compatibility planning is to minimize the number of people adversely affected by noise impacts. It has been determined by the FAA and HUO that housing constructed within LON contours over 65 is not a compatible use and could be expected to generate a high degree of noise complaints. While housing within the 65 LON is very undesirable, if it is determined that housing must be built, it must be adequately sound insulated. The land use controls are rated for their potential adequacy in preventing all residential development in LON contours 65 and greater. 2. Maximize shared multi-jurisdictional responsibility. Since planning for compatible land uses involves many diverse jurisdictions which can benefit from airport-generated economic development, implementation of land use controls often requires a great deal of cooperation. These jurisdictions may not want to lose control of land use or tax revenues from noise impacted land. However, reliance on inter-jurisdictional cooperation in the long-run can cause failure of some land use

PAGE 63

55 controls. Inter-governmental agreements are sometimes broken over time, decreasing the long-run adequacy of land use controls which rely on this cooperation. Alter-native controls are analyzed for their relative adequacy to effectively make use of inter-governmental cooperation or eliminate the need for it altogether. 3. Minimize effect on the land market. Efficiency and equity in the allocation of land is a consideration in evaluating land use controls. When a land use control excludes residential uses and in its place includes com-mercial and industrial, a market supply situation out of balance with demand can occur and result in a change in price for both2 • A danger of this situation, which threatens the public economic welfare, exists where resi-dential uses are excluded due to airport noise impacts. Aircraft noise affects many acres of land which, when restricted to compatible uses such as commercial or industrial, can make a large impression in the supply and demand balance. A shortage in residential land and a glut of commercial and industrial land can occur as land ripens for development in airport environs over the long-run. As a result, the cost of housing will rise and value of commercial and industrial land decrease. The alternative controls are rated for their relative ade-2Gordon C. Bjork, Life, Liberty, and Property -The Economics and Politics of Land-use Planning and Environmental Controls, Lexlngton Books, Lexlngton, Mass., 1980, pp. 91, 92.

PAGE 64

56 quacy in minimizing market imbalance and resulting land value shifts. 4. Minimize effect on land values. Besides the land value shift effect within the land maiket, land use controls can effect the value of land through the intensity of use allowed3 as much in the short-run, due to speculation, as in the long run. More intensive uses such as commercial bring a higher price on the market than less intensive residential uses. Artificial changes in land value which are incurred by public policy controls and not related to market demand can be undesirable. While some private properties lose value through governmental imposition of land use restrictions, other properties gain value by allowance of more intensive uses. Each .land use control is rated for its adequacy in avoiding this windfall for wipeout situation. 5. Maximize fairness through compensation. Some experts and all losing property owners feel compensation should be made where windfall for wipeout situations occur in the land market as a result of land use controls. Law requires compensation where public actions have been found to be arbitrary and capricious in a "taking" of reasonable property use. It is not required when the few lose value in their property for the benefit of the community as a whole. Planning would be inhibited 3rbid., pp. 62.

PAGE 65

57 if every windfall and wipeout had to be identified and compensated. It is desirable, however, to keep windfalls and wipeouts at a minimum, but when a government control can inherently make compensation through its implementation, it is much easier for everyone involved. Each land use control is rated for its inherent adequacy at providing fair compensation for losses in property value. 6. Minimize implementation costs. Some land use controls require no more investment of public money than occurs through everyday government administration. Others may require great front-end expenditures. Some times some or all of the money can be recouped through resale of development rights or land, reducing the total cost. In the long-run, costs will be lower as amortization of the front-end investment over time reduces the yearly cost or as costs are recouped through sales. The alternative land use controls are compared for their adequacy in keeping the total cost of implementation as low as possible. 7. Maximize permanence of land use control. Many of the problems with effectiveness of past land use control efforts in high noise impact areas are a result of deterioration of control over time. The alternative controls are rated for their potential to withstand the

PAGE 66

58 test of economic and political pressures throughout the life of an airport. 8. Maximize enforceability by the airport authority. Because airport authorities are held legally responsible for noise impacts off the airport, they must have authority to decide the degree to which land use controls will be enforced. Much of their control is lost if they rely on other jurisdictions or the control has not been proven to stand up to legal tests. The land use controls are rated for their relative adequacy in assuring the airport can take enforcement action when it deems necessary. 9. Protect airport investment. Because local restrictions on aircraft flight activity threatens the investment placed in an airport, it is desirable to maximize protection of this investment. Land use controls can contribute a great deal to this protection by eliminating noncompatible land uses which create a need for flight restrictions. It is very difficult to separate this element and rate it independently from some other elements of the general analysis at hand. The adequacy of enforcement and permanence elements greatly influences the land use control's adequacy in protecting investment in the airport. For this reason, if enforcement and permanence

PAGE 67

59 rate highly, it is l ikely that protection of investment will also. 4.2 Results of Case Studies Questionnaire Only three of the nine questionnaires were returned, and these were not all completely filled out. This limits the quality of conclusions which can be drawn from the results, but can serve as a guide in the analysis of overall effectiveness of controls currently in use at large airports which arethreatened by encroaching residential development. Table 4.3 summarizes the results of the Case Studies Questionnaire. All three respondents report the use of Restrictive Zoning, Easements, Property Acquisition, and Performance Standards. 4.2.1 Overall Success of Land Use Controls In the interest of simplicity for the respondents, the questionnaire did not ask for separate success ratings for each land use control used. Unfortunately, this restricts the extent to which the results can be applied to this analysis of each alternative control. While it can not be positively concluded that the success rating is inversely related to number of years a program is in use, it appears there may be some correlation. Hartsfield-Atlanta rates their land use control program as totally successful after three years of implementation. The success rating is not so high for Dallas-

PAGE 68

TABLE 4.3 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS AIRPORT NAME RESPONDENT AIRPORT AUTHORITY AIRPORT CLASS. ANNUAL ENPLANEMENTS AIRPORT ACREAGE LAND USE CONTROLS ACREAGE CONTROLLE D LAND VALUES EFFE CT** REDISTRIBUTION** MARKET BALANCE** COMPENSATION COSTS YEARS IMPLEMENTED LAND RIPENESS** PRESSURE TO REMOVE** CONTROLS R EMOVED** SUCCESS RATING*** FACTORS IN SUCCESS RATING Dallas-Fort Worth Comm. Dev. Dir. City of Irving Cities of Dallas & Fort Worth International 19 million 17,500 Restrictive Zoning excludes Residential from 19,750 acres Easements 7,500 ac Prop. Acquis. 100 ac Perf. Stand. 17593 ac 37,343 2 2 3 No* 17 years 3 1 1 7 Multi-jurisdictional control, tax base competition limit effectiveness *Some compensation paid by acquisition Hartsfield-Atlanta Manager of Airport Planning City of Atlanta Major Hub 22.6 million 3,750 Restrictive Zoning excludes Residential from 3,693 acres Easement 11,706 ac Prop. Acquis. 3693 ac Perf. Stand. 12605 ac 27,904 1 1 1 No* $145 million 3 years 2 1 1 10 Airport review of proposals; technical guidance to other jurisdictions Seattle-Tacoma Facilities Devel. Manager Port of Seattle Major Hub 6. 75 million 2,400 Resrictive Zoning Easement Purchase Property Acquisition Performance Standards 1 1 2 No* $150-200 million 12 years 2 2 . 1 5 **Rated by respondents on scale of 1 = No effect, 2 = Some effect, 3 = Great effect ***Rated by respondents on scale of 1 = total failure, 5 = moderately successful, 10 = totally successful 60

PAGE 69

61 Fort Worth and Seattle-Tacoma which have had their programs in place for 12 and 17 years, respectively. There is a possibility that there is a correlation between the success of the program and the number of acres under controls which provide for enforcement by an airport authority, versus controls requiring a great deal of inter-jurisdictional cooperation • For example, Dallas-Fort Worth, which returned a success rating of 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, excluded residential development from 19,750 acres by useof restrictive zoning, and 17,593 acres have stringent performance standards applied to construction, covering 100 percent of the acreage controlled. These two methods are characteristically easily withdrawn and difficult for the airport authority to control, as documented in Section 4.3 General Analysis of Land Use Controls. Easements owned by the airport authority are applied on top of the zoning and performance standards to only 20 percent of the land, and only .2 percent has been purchased by the airport authority. In contrast, Hartsfield-Atlanta has purchased and applied easements to 55 percent of the land controlled4 . The remaining 45 percent is placed under strict construe-tion performance standards. Besides the short testing period this airport's program has been through, the high 4Hartsfield-Atlanta lists 3,693 acres as under restrictive zoning. This acreage is also listed under property which was acquired for open space.

PAGE 70

62 success rating of 10 may be a result of the majority of acreage being under controls which are characteristically more easily enforced by the airport authority. 4.2.2 Effect on Land Market and Land Values Dallas-Fort Worth has experienced a great effect on the land market balance as a result of implementation of the land use controls, again of which zoning and performance standards cover 100 percent of land controlled. The controls have also had some effect on land values. Seattle-Tacoma reports some effect on the market balance, but no effect on land values. Hartsfield-Atlanta reports no effect on either the market balance or land values. 4.3 General Analysis of Land Use Controls 4.3.1 Restrictive Zoning Zoning to restrict private property rights is implemented through use of the police powers delegated to a local jurisdiction by the state. It must be based on a comprehensive plan which addresses the community health, safety, and general welfare in all aspects. Airport compatibility planning is targeted at achieving the best i n all three of these criteria. Zoning does not require compensation to property owners for restricting the use of their land if it is shown to be in the best interest of the community as a whole. As long as zoning to a less intensive use is backed by economic feasibility studies

PAGE 71

• 63 in the comprehensive planning process it will not constitute a taking away of the property's value. Traditional zoning which prohibits development of incompatible uses in airport environs involves low implementation costs5 and has the capacity to control all noise sensitive acreage. However, zoning for compatible uses at the exclusion of residential uses can create imbalance and related land value shifts in the land mar-ket. It can also raise land values by zoning for more intensive commercial and industrial uses which demand a higher sales price. While zoning may be very affordable, it has several weaknesses as a land use control in airport environs. First, it is not necessarily a permanent solution. Decision making bodies are not bound by previous zoning decisions aimed at developing airport compatible uses. They may be under continual pressure to rezone to noncompatible uses especially if the supply and demand in the land market is out of balance. A report on the effects of the Dallas/Fort Worth airport on surrounding land uses gives a good indication of the permanence of zoning as a land use control where a number of jurisdictions are involved. Approximately ten communities are affected by aircraft overflight noise 5Bjork, Life, Liberty, and Property -The Economics and Politics of Land-use Planning and Environmental Controls, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1980, pp. 65.

PAGE 72

64 from the airport. The report stated in 1974, after four years of land use control implementation, that: Clearly, zoning restrictions may not be particularly effective, either because of a lack of comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances in the communities surrounding the airport or because the existing ordinances are not always enforced. Recommendations for appropriate land use in the airport environs may be either ignored or overlooked by communities surrounding the airport. Daily there are decisions occurring which could adversely these communities and the airport itself . An airport authority does not have the power to zone land in another jurisdiction. Since airport noise impacts can stretch for miles into a number of diverse jurisdictions, effective coordination to assure land use compatibility is very difficult. While all jurisdictions may agree to share the responsibility to zone for airport compatibility at the outset, the potential for them eventually turning their backs on compatibility for the sake of economic development is great. The problem of lack of permanence and airport authority to enforce zoning is compounded by the number of jurisdictions involved. 4.3.2 Property Acquisition A method of assuring permanence and enforceability in use control in airport environs is to purchase 6 Harry Wolfe, A Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport on Surface Transportation and Land Use, Council for Advanced Transportat1on Studies, University of Texas at Austin, April, 1974, p. 30.

PAGE 73

65 all land in high noise impact areas. The airport author-ity would then control it as a property owner and public jurisdiction. Case law suggests that the airport would not have unlimited property use rights if the land would remain within the boundaries of another local jurisdic-tion. Uses must be kept in the best interest of the public and be evaluated for impacts upon local jurisdictions7. Acceptable uses meeting the needs of affected jurisdictions and the airport could be worked out in the comprehensive planning process. Because of the typically high cost of purchasing enough land to totally contain high noise impacts, fee simple land acquisition is impractical when used alone. An added cost is the loss in property tax revenues when land is removed from the tax rolls through acquisition by a public jurisdiction. This tool is most practical when applied only to limited land areas within extreme noise contours where permanent exclusion of incompatible uses is most vital. It will also be more practical if vacant land without infrastructure is the subject of acquisition because of its considerably lower cost. If an airport authority takes vast acreages off the private market by simply purchasing and holding the land, this alternative has potential to upset the supply and prices of land, at least in the local area. 7Robert c. Ellickson and A. Dan Tarlock, Land-Use Controls: Cases and Materials, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1981, p. 900.

PAGE 74

66 4.3.3 Purchase of Development Rights A more affordable alternative to fee simple property purchase is the acquisition of only the residential development rights attached to the property. Depending on the proximity to existing urban development and infrastructure availability, development rights can amount to up to 90% of the property value8 • Development rights can be separated from the prop-erty in three steps. The airport authority would first acquire the property through outright purchase or through eminent domain. Restrictions prohibiting residential use of the property would then be stipulated in the deed and the property put back on the private market for compati-ble land uses such as agricultural, commercial or indus-trial. This would have the effect of increasing the property's sale price if commercial or industrial uses are allowed. Consequently, the jurisdiction would reap a profit from the resale of the land. The airport juris-diction can then use the profit to purchase development rights or land in the highest LDN contours which are not suitable for any development. Local jurisdictions' prop-erty tax revenues on the land would increase by the land being taxed at higher use value as commercial or indus-trial. 8Peter Wolf, Land In America -Its Value, Use, and Control, Pantheon Books, New York, 1981, p. 289.

PAGE 75

67 Purchase of development rights offers the same strong advantages of permanence and enforceability as property purchase. Once the residential development rights are severed from the property, they can only be reinstated and deed restrictions removed by the airport authority. The need for multi-jurisdictional sharing of responsibility is alleviated, and the investment in the airport protected because the airport authority has taken full responsibility to remove the possibility of incompatible uses. As with zoning, governmental control of land uses through development right acquisition can have adverse effects on the land market balance. While land prices may be unintentionally affected through market imbalance, purchase of development rights is a fair means of controlling private property. It offers compensation to property owners for the fair market value of rights to develop residential uses. Compensation would be more than fair where owners gain new commercial or industrial development rights. 4.3.4 Acquisition or Dedication of Avigation Easements Another alternative to property acquisition is acquisition of avigation easements across property in high noise impact areas of airports. There are two kinds of easements available to airport environs land use control:

PAGE 76

68 Positive avigation easements allow aircraft to make noise over the property. These are commonly used in built-out areas, but can be applied to vacant land under development. Any new homes built would have a positive easement attached to the property deed. This would serve the double purpose of releasing the airport authority from liability for noise impacts to the horne, and also serve to notify property purchasers of potential noise impacts. Negative avigation easements prevent creation or continuation of unprotected noise sensitive land uses. Attachment of a negative easement to the deeds of properties in high noise impact areas precludes construction of incompatible land uses which are not sufficiently insulated to mitigate noise effects. Easements may be acquired in three ways. They may be purchased outright, be dedicated to the airport authority through local agency approval of new subdivisions, or be acquired through condemnation. Whichever means is used, they may be acquired at no cost or at a fraction of the total property value. Fair compensation for loss of use or value resulting from the airport authority's right to generate noise over the property is made if the easements are purchased. Easements are fully enforceable legal tools and offer permanence because they run with the land. They

PAGE 77

69 can only be removed from deeds by the airport authority being granted the easements. Lands with easements attached are not removed from property tax roll"s. They remain in private ownership and use restrictions are limited. Positive easements serve a purpose of warning purchasers of subject property of potential aircraft noise impacts. Horne buyers then have the opportunity to make an informed choice of whether or not to buy a horne in a high noise impact area. While easements may reduce the.value of the property by warning potential buyers who are sensitive to noise, those buyers willing to accept noise in exchange for lower housing costs will preserve some demand and value for the land with minimal impact on the supply. Because property owners are warned before purchasing homes in high noise impact areas, the easement releases the airport authority of liability for noise impacts. Since operations of the airport cannot be threatened by complaints from surrounding residential neignborhoods, airport investment is protected. In addition, there is no need for multi-jurisdictional sharing of responsibility because the airport authority has assumed all responsibility by being granted avigation easements covering all lands in high noise impact areas. 4.3.5 Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of development rights (TOR's) also involves separation of residential development rights from the

PAGE 78

70 property. The TOR mechanism carries the separation further by designating an appropriate planning area to receive the severed development rights. Therefore, imbalances in the land market are less likely to occur. Under a TOR system, noise sensitive transfer areas are zoned for non-residential uses and the severed resi-dential development rights are quantified through saleable certificates issued to the property owners. Specific receiver areas are zoned to accept the quanti-fied residential development rights. TOR's may be sold .by a property owner in the transfer district to an owner in the receiver district, or purchased by the airport authority and then sold into the receiver district. In the long-run, TOR's cost the airport authority little or nothing in acquisition costs because costs are recovered through sale. However, TOR's cannot be sue-cessful if there is no market for residential development rights in a receiver zone. The tool is most effective in growing urban fringe areas where there is a demand for new housing combined with land preservation goals9 , such as would be the case in development of a new airport and its environs. In this situation, the prospects of there being both a buyer and seller for the residential devel-opment right are good. 9Hershel J. Richman and Lane H. Kendig, "Transferable Development Rights -A Pragmatic View", Environmental Comment, April, 1978, p. 4.

PAGE 79

71 TOR's cost the property owner nothing in the longrun because compensation for loss in development value is available through sale of the development right. If property is included in LON contours which can accept compatible commercial or industrial development, the development value is actually increased. Permanence of the TOR system is guaranteed by attaching a deed restriction prohibiting residential development to the property once the residential development rights are sold. The property tax base for the local jurisdiction does not suffer because residential rates would be redistributed within the jurisdiction along with the development right. Property taxes would even increase where land gains commercial or industrial use rights in place of residential. Enforceability can be a problem with TOR's as a land use control. If the property is zoned to restrict residential, until the residential development right is transferred, there is potential for the zoning to be changed to allow incompatible uses. The airport authority has no control over when the right will be severed from the property. Another enforcement problem is that transfer and receiver districts will probably not be under the airport authority jurisdiction but under the jurisdiction of a local government or a number of local governments. The same weaknesses of zoning surface because the system relies on a great deal of multi-

PAGE 80

72 jurisdictional sharing of responsibility. Investment in the airport therefore cannot be guaranteed and the assurance that all noise sensitive areas will be treated with appropriate development restrictions is not great. 4.3.6 Tax Incentives -Differential Property Assessment Vacant acreage within the highest LDN contours where no development would be compatible may be considered for an open space buffer between the airport and development in less severe LDN contours. A means of discouraging development is differential property assessment which offers lowered property tax for keeping the land in agricultural use. There are two types of differential property assessment which have been used in farmland preservation: Preferential property assessment allows farmland under pressure for development on the urban fringe to be taxed at its value for agricultural production rather than its fair market value for development. As the farmer's tax burden is reduced, farming costs are reduced along with the temptation to sell out to land developers. Property tax deferral is similar to preferential property assessment. The difference is that upon sale of agricultural land at its developable value, or conversion to a noncompatible use, owners are required to pay some

PAGE 81

or all of the taxes which they had been excused from paying while the land was kept in agricultural use10• 73 Encroaching suburbanization often encourages farmers to sell their land because of the vandalism and corn-plaints it brings to farm areas, along with rising property values and taxes. Two conditions must exist to create the possibility for tax incentives to be effective in preventing farmers from selling out for development. First, assessed values based on fair market values must be significantly higher than those based on agricultural use value. Second, taxes must be rising on the property. Both these conditions exist where a new airport is planned for land under significant development pressure on or near the urban fringe. A third desirable condition is that the farmland being held for agriculture is of good quality for crop or livestock production. Differential property assessment as a permanent solution to land use incompatibility problems around airports is questionable. A Council on Environmental Quality study argues that differential tax assessment is "marginally effective" in long-term prevention of development11. First of all, there is no guarantee owners of 10The Protection of Farmland: A Reference Guidebook for State and Local Governments, Nat1onal Agr1cultural Lands Study, Regional Science Research Institute, Amherst, Mass., no date, p. 57. 11untaxing Open Space: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Open Space, Council on Environmental Quality, April, 1976, p. 115.

PAGE 82

74 designated properties in high noise impact areas will participate. Secondly, owners are free to pull out of the program at any time even though it will be costly to them in back taxes. The land market balance on the urban fringe can be affected by differential tax assessment. The system is designed to keep land out of the developable land market. If the system is successful, a shortage of housing could take place in the local area and the price of housing rise12• The Council on Environmental Quality study also argues that the cost of differential tax assessment in terms of tax expenditures is high because the property tax burden is often shifted to other sectors13• Differ-ential tax assessment should not be viewed as causing a loss in property taxes revenues (cost in tax expenditure) or a shift in assessments to other taxpayers, however. If the land remains undeveloped, costs for infrastructure and services remain minimal. There is, therefore, no added cost and no justification for added property taxes. 12Bjork, Life, Liberty, and Property -The Economics and Politics of Land-use Planning and Environmental Controls, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1980, pp. 95. 13untaxing Open Space: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Open Space, Counc1l on Environmental Quality, April, 1976, p. 115.

PAGE 83

75 4.3.7 Strict Performance Standards in Building Codes All structures built within moderately high LON noise contours can be sound insulated to different degrees, depending on the use of the structure and interior noise level sought. HUO guidelines require sound insulation for any homes built within a 65 LON contour to meet a minimum standard reducing interior noise to a comfortable level. One possible means of discouraging development in high noise impact areas of airports is by requiring noise insulation standards which exceed that minimum for new construction through local building codes. A building code requiring high standards to mitigate most or all of the aircraft overflight noise impact to building interiors would discourage incompatible development by raising building costs to a level where construction would not be cost-efficient. This could pose a legal public welfare problem of an exclusionary effect by precluding construction of affordable housing for low and moderate income families. Strict performance standards could affect the land market balance of demand and supply for residential land. Unless it is economically feasible to build in the high noise impact area, the supply of affordable residential land will be decreased, and the price increased elsewhere in the market area.

PAGE 84

76 Another potential difficulty with this tool is that the land would lose value if it were too costly to build upon14• If the price of the land dropped so low as to make up for the high cost of construction, development could occur despite strict building codes. If the goal is not to prevent development altogether but to assure it is built to reduce noise impacts to building interiors, this goal would be met. However, fairness of the tool may be a factor because the original property owners would ask compensation for loss in property values. Multi-jurisdictional cooperation and sharing of responsibility would be required but difficult to guaran-tee in implementing the building codes. Permanence could not be guaranteed because the building code could be changed to allow less stringent standards. Enforcement of the strict codes would be the responsibility of a local jurisdiction and not be possible by the airport authority. 4.3.8 Public Capital Improvements Another means of discouraging development in a par-ticular area is through capital improvements policy. Areas where provision of fire, police, schools, roads, sewer, and water services is withheld, land is not devel-opable. This has the effect of eliminating the possibil-ity of any incompatible development. Residential devel-14wolf, Land in America -Its Value, Use, and Control, Pantheon Books, New York, 1981, p. 152.

PAGE 85

77 opment can be guided toward lower noise impact areas by providing services in those areas. Guiding development through provision of public capital improvements must be done through comprehensive planning. As a general rule, services cannot be withheld for the purpose of excluding new residential development in a jurisdiction. Enough services must be provided to meet housing demand. Where location of the services is a policy decision, the decision must be tested to show that it is in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. In planning land use in the environs of a new airport, the justification for guiding incompatible development away from the airport in the public's interest is strong when based on solid noise impact evidence. There are a number of problems with using capital improvements to prevent residential development in airport environs. Multi-jurisdictional cooperation and sharing of responsibility would be necessary but difficult to achieve. Enforcement would not be in the hands of the airport jurisdiction and permanence would not be guaranteed because capital improvements programs can be revised regularly. Therefore, investment in the airport could not be guaranteed protection in the long run.

PAGE 86

78 Enhancing access and providing services to vacant farmland increases its value as developable property15• By withdrawing future provision of public improvements to prime development land, the land has questionable future use and generally declines in value16• Property owners left with no future infrastructure possibilities may ask for compensation for loss in future property values. If capital improvements are not provided for resi-dences in high noise impact areas, they also are not available for commercial or industrial uses. Precluding commercial and industrial development from airport envi-rons could create a wide disparity between demand and supply of land for these uses because it is a prime locality for businesses. 4.4 Application of Delphi Polling 4.4.1 Administration of Poll Impact Categories Rating Sheets and a brief descrip-tion of land use control strategies and their implica-tions were distributed to twenty five members of the New Airport Citizen Advisory Committee. The form of the questionnaire is included in the Appendix. 15wolf, Land in America -Its Value, Use, and Control, Pantheon Books, New York, 1981, pp. 152, 232, 233. 16wolf, Land in America -Its Value, Use, and Control, Pantheon Books, New York, 1981, p. 262.

PAGE 87

79 A fairly even distribution of elected official, development, resident, and planner interests were represented by the questionnaire mailing, as shown in Table 4.4. The various jurisdictions represented are also shown. 4.4.2 Rate of response Of the 25 questionnaires sent, 17 or 68% were returned (Table 4.5). One return was not used because it was not labelled with type of respondent. Six residents, 1 elected official, 3 developers, and 6 planners are verified respondents. The unequal distribution of interests in the responses reduces the accuracy of results in the final evaluation. 4.4.3 Results of the Delphi Poll Members receiving questionnaires were asked to rate the nine goal areas according to the relative importance to the interests they represent on a scale of 1 to 20, where 1 represents the most important, and 20 the least important. Results of the Delphi Poll were standardized to the scale of the General Analysis of Ability to Meet Goals shown are shown in Table 4.6 and represented graphically in Figure 4.1. Table 4.6 and Figure 4.1 show the spread of a Mean Importance Score for each response category and each of the goal areas. For later analysis, Mean Importance

PAGE 88

80 TABLE 4.4 DELPHI POLL MAILING RESIDENT ELECTED !DEVELOPER PLANNER TOTAL JURISDICTION OFFICIAL ============= ======== ========j========= --------------------------Aurora Denver Adams Co. * Environmental Protection Agency Denver Regional COG 1 5 2 1 1 1 4 0 5 1 11 I 3 1 2 8 1 1 1 1 ---------1--------1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------TOTALS 8 4 7 6 25 TABLE 4.5 DELPHI POLL RETURNS NUMBER OF PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT PERCENT QUESTION-OF RETURNED OF OF TOTAL NAIRES TOTAL CATEGORY RETURNED SENT SENT RETURNED ----------========= ======= ---------------========= -------------------------RESPONDENT CATEGORY Resident 8 32% 6 75% 35% Elected I I I Official 4 16% 1 25% 6% I I I Developer 7 28% 3 43% 18% Public I I I Planner 6 24% 6 100% 35% Not I I Identified 1 6% ========== ========= =======I======== ========I========= TOTALS 25 100% 17 100% Percent 68%

PAGE 89

----------------IMPACT CATEGORY GOAL AREAS =========== = RESPONDENT CATEGORY Resident No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean Std. Dev. Elec. Of fic. No. 1 Mean Std. Dev. Developer No. 1 2 3 Mean Std. Dev. Planner 1 Minimize Housing Units Affected By Noise ======== 20 20 20 20 20 20 20.00 o.oo 20 20.00 0.00 18 1 9 .50 4.25 2 Maximize Shared Res pons-ibility =:::====== 18 20 20 20 20 20 19.67 0.12 20 20.00 0.00 20 6 1 9.00 3.30 TABLE 4.6 RESULTS OF DELPHI POLL 3 Minimize Effect On Land Market =======:.:::: 18 11 11 11 11 1 10.50 3.69 11 11.00 o.oo 9 16 16 13.67 1.10 4 Minimize Effect on Land Values ======== 20 11 6 7 11 1 9.33 3.48 11 11.00 0.00 4 20 20 14.67 2.51 5 Maximize Fairness Through Compen-sat ion ======== 16 9 6 4 20 16 11.83 5.55 11 11.00 o.oo 7 1 9 5 .67 3.28 6 Minimize Implemen tat ion Costs :::======= = 16 20 20 19 16 20 18.50 1.43 16 16.00 0.00 13 11 1 8.33 4.23 7 Maximize Perma-nence &:::z:::::a.:z::::: 18 20 20 20 20 20 19.67 0.12 20 20.00 0.00 17 16 1 11.33 6.27 8 Maximize Entorce ability by Airport :::=:z:===::: 6 20 9 19 20 20 15 . 6 7 4.01 20 20.00 0.00 16 1 11 9.33 4.37 9 Protect Invest-ment = ==== === 18 11 11 14 20 20 15.67 3.72 11 11.00 0.00 1 20 6 9.00 6.02 No. 1 20 20 16 11 16 18 20 1 16 2 19 17 15 15 18 20 18 16 16 3 18 3 6 9 9 16 20 19 18 4 ' 2 0 2 0 11 6 16 16 2 0 13 6 5 20 16 6 11 11 20 16 19 13 6 20 20 11 11 11 16 20 20 11 Mean 19.50 16.00 10.83 10.50 13.50 17.67 19.00 14.67 13.33 Std. Dev. 0.73 5.76 3.15 2.68 3.11 1.79 1.46 2.56 3.81 MEAN IMPORTANCE 18.40 16.31 11.25 10.88 11.25 16.13 17.88 14.38 13.25 SCORE ============1========1========1========1========1========1========1=========1========1======== STANDARD DEVIATION 4.85 6.55 4.42 5 .64 5.36 4 . 84 4.71 6 .65 5 .74 ============1= = = =====1========1========1========1========1========1=========1= = = =====1 ===== === RELATIVE RATING SCALE : 20 = Excellent ability/High Importance; 1 = Poor Ability/Low Importance 81

PAGE 90

20 19 18 17 16 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 tz:Zl Res. IMPACT CATEGORY GOAL AREAS cs::sJ Elected EZ2Z3 Dev. Planner

PAGE 91

83 Scores for all response categories are also shown at the bottom of Table 4.6. 4.4.4 Observations of Result of Delphi Poll The Residents interest group was well represented with 6 out of the 8 (75 percent), of the questionnaires sent to this category returned. These comprised 32 percent of all sent and 38 percent of all returned. Residents rated Goal Area 1, Minimize Housing Units Affected By Noise, and Goal Area 8, Maximize Enforceability by Airport, as the most important, followed closely by Goal Area 2, Maximize Shared Responsibility, and Goal Area 7, Maximize Permanence. Goal Areas 3 through 5 dealing with the land market, land values, and compensation to speculative landowners rated lowest in this group. These results indicate strong value orientation toward preservation of a quality living environment through assurance of permanent controls to reduce aircraft noise impacts in residential neighborhoods with little concern for speculative interests. The results expressed as Mean Importance Scores from the group as a whole are most representative of individual responses in Goal Areas 1, 2, and 7 with negligible standard deviations. The Mean Importance Scores are least representative of individual ratings in Goal Area 5 with a standard deviation of 5.55.

PAGE 92

84 Considering the high rate of response in the Resident category and the very low standard deviations in the Goal Areas rated holding the highest importance, it is accurate to state that minimizing the number of housing units affected by aircraft noise, maximizing shared responsibility in controlling land use to avoid noise impacts, and maximizing permanence of land use controls are the highest priorities of the goal area choices presented to this group. The Elected Officials interest category was not well represented by responses to the questionnaire with only 1 of 4 (25 percent) questionnaires returned. This amounts to only 6 percent of all those returned. The one respondent rated Goal Areas 1, 2, 7, and 8 as equally most important to the political interests he represents. Goal Areas 3, 4, 5, and 9 were all rated equally least important, but still holding a certain degree of importance, being rated at 11. The Developer interest category was better represented with 3, or 43 percent, of the 7 questionnaires returned. This comprises 19% of all returned. There is much less agreement in this interest category on the relative importance of goal areas. None received a mean group importance rating of over 15, with Goal Area 4, Minimize Effect on Land Values, scoring the highest with 14.67. While two respondents scored this

PAGE 93

85 goal at 20 as most important, the third gave it very little importance at 4. The area of most agreement was Goal Area 3, Minimize Effect on Land Market with a standard deviation of 1.1 and a relative importance score of 13.67. The Developer category rated Goal Area 5, Maximize Fairness Through Compensation, of the lowest importance. This is a surprising result of the poll as the researcher expected Developer interests to be more concerned with being paid for negative effects to their properties' value caused by restrictive land use controls. The Public Planner category returned 100% of the 6 questionnaires mailed to them, comprising 38 percent of all returned. This category agreed highly on Goal Area 1 being the most important with a Mean Importance Score of 19.5 and standard deviation of only 0.73. Goal Area 7, Maximizing Permanence, is also highly important, scoring a 19. The least importance was given to Goal Area 4, Minimize Effect on Land Values, which still holds some degree of importance with a score of 10.5. General observations. While some individuals used the full scoring range of 120,not all did. This may indicate differences in interpretation of .scoring. The researcher intended the goal areas choices provided to be rated relative to each other using the full scoring range. Some respondents did not use the lower numbers (1

PAGE 94

86 10) in scoring. Those respondents may have been doing one of two possible things: (a) interjecting additional goal areas which rated lower than those choices provided, resulting in median to high scores for choices provided; or (b) found all goal area choices provided to be aspects deserving much consideration in the study.

PAGE 95

CHAPTER V EVALUATION AND APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO DENVER'S PROPOSED AIRPORT By incorporating the Mean Importance Scores for each Goal Area from the Delphi Poll results described in Chapter IV, it is possible to arrive at an Effectiveness Ranking of the alternative land use controls being studied for both the short-run and long-run. This evaluation is specific to the Denver proposed airport situation as it considers opinions of citizens, elected officials, developers, and public planners involved in that particular planning process. 5.1 The Evaluation Process Tables 5.1 and 5.2 incorporate the Mean Importance Scores from results of the Delphi Poll shown in Table 4.6 with General Analysis of Abilities for Controls to Meet Goals in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 for the short-run (up to 5 years) and the long-run (6 to 20 years). 5.1.1 The Evaluation Matrices The purpose of Tables 5.1 and 5.2 is three-fold:

PAGE 96

TABLE 5.1 DIFFERENTIAL ANALYSIS OF CONTROLS TO MEET GOALS Short Run .L .t. ., 4 ::> o-8 IMPACT Minimize Maximize Minimize Minimize Maximize Minimize Maximize Maximize Protect CATEGORY Housing Shared Effect Effect Fairness Implemen Perma-Enforce-Airport GOAL Units Res ponsOn Land on Land Through tation nence ability InvestAREAS Affected ibility Market Values Compen-Costs by ment By Noise sation Airport ============ ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== MEAN IMPORTANCE 18.40 16.31 11.25 10.88 11.25 16.13 17.88 14.38 13.25 SCORES •z==========l========l========l========l========l========l========l=========l========l======== LAND USE CONTROLS 1. Zoning Restrictions 20 15 11 7 1 19 15 1 15 DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 1.31 0.25 3.88 10.25 2.88 2.88 13.38 1.75 2. Property Acquisition 12 18 14 17 19 5 20 20 20 DIFFERENTIAL 6.40 1.69 2.75 6.13 7.75 11.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 3. Purchase Development Rights 20 20 11 11 20 9 20 20 20 DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 3.69 0.25 0.13 8.75 7.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 4. Avigation Easements 20 20 15 10 17 13 20 20 20 DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 3.69 3.75 0.88 5.75 3.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 5. TOR's 11 11 17 11 16 18 17 1 7 DIFFERENTIAL 7.40 5.31 5.75 0.13 4.75 1. 88 0.88 13.38 6.25 6. Tax Incentives 11 11 13 9 19 20 11 1 9 DIFFERENTIAL 7.40 5.31 1. 75 1.88 7.75 3.88 6.88 13.38 4.25 7. Perform. Standards 9 11 13 5 1 20 11 1 9 DIFFERENTIAL 9.40 5.31 1. 75 . 5. 88 10.25 3.88 6.88 13.38 4.25 8. Capital Improvements 20 11 9 9 1 20 15 1 15 DIFFERENTIAL 1.60 5.31 2.25 1.88 10.25 3.88 2.88 13.38 1. 75 MEAN EFFECTIVEDIFFERENNESS RANK TIAL ========= ========== 4.24 4 5.59 6 4.00 2 3.70 1 5.08 5 5.83 7 6.77 8 4.80 3 ============!=================================================================================!=========!========== RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 = Excellent Ability/High Importance; 1 = Poor Ability/Low Importance 88

PAGE 97

TABLE 5.2 DIFFEREN'l'IAL ANAL'lSIS OF CON1'ROLS 10 MEEI GOALS Long Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 'MPJ\CT CATEGORY GOAL AREAS 1n1m1ze m :nil1fi--zt! Housing Shared Units ResponsAffected ibility By Noise on Land Values ========== ======== ======== ======== ======== MEAN IMPORTANCE 18.40 16.31 11.25 10.88 SCORES Fairness Implemen Through tat ion Compen-Costs sat ion ======== ======== 11.25 16.13 7 8 9 -w.nril1fi-z-e-""Maximi-v rute-c PermaEnforce-Airport nence ability Invest-by ment Airport ========= ======== ========= 17.88 14.38 13.25 ============1========1========1========1========1========1========1=========1========1======== LAND USE CONTROLS 1. Zoning I Restrictions 20 7 11 7 1 20 8 1 7 DIFFERENTIAL 1. 60 9.31 0.25 3.88 10.25 3.88 9.88 13.38 6.25 2. Property Acquisition 11 19 11 17 19 11 .20 20 20 DIFFERENTIAL 7.40 2.69 0.25 6.13 7.75 5.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 3. Purchase Development Rights 20 20 11 12 19 11 20 20 20 DIFFERENTIAL 1. 60 3.69 0.25 1.13 7.75 5.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 4. Avigation Easements 20 20 15 11 17 15 20 20 20 DIFFERENTIAL 1. 60 3.69 3.75 0.13 5.75 1.13 2.13 5.63 6.75 5. TOR's 11 7 15 9 15 19 18 1 7 DIFFERENTIAL 7.40 9.31 3.75 1.88 3.75 2.88 0.13 13.38 6.25 6. Tax Incentives 7 7 5 9 19 20 4 1 5 DIFFERENTIAL 11.40 6.25 1.88 7.75 3.88 13.88 13.38 8.25 7. Perform. Standards 9 7 9 5 1 20 7 1 5 DIFFERENTIAL 9.40 9.31 2.25 5.88 10.25 3.88 10.88 13.38 8.25 a. Capital Improvements 20 7 7 7 1 20 11 1 13 DIFFERENTIAL 1. 60 9.31 4.25 3.88 10.25 3.88 6.88 13.38 0.25 MEAN EFFECTIVE-DIFFERENNESS RANK TIAL ========= ========== 6.52 6 4.87 3 3.78 2 I 3.39 1 I 5.41 4 I 8.44 8 I 8.16 7 I 5.96 5 ============1=================================================================================1=========1========== RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 = Excellent Ability/High Importance; 1 = Poor Ability /Low Importance 89

PAGE 98

90 1. Basic to the evaluation is determination of the difference between the importance the Delphi experts attach to each goal area and the ability each land use control has to meet that goal. The result is called the DIFFERENTIAL. This calculation is based on the premise that when a particular land use control rates high in ability to meet the goal, and the goal is of great importance to the group polled, the DIFFERENTIAL will be low. Alternatively, if the goal is of little importance and the land use control rates low in ability to meet the goal, the DIFFERENTIAL will again be low. In either case, the land use control would be compatible to the rate of .importance assigned to the goal. For example, if Goal Area 1 is assigned a high Mean Importance Score of 20 and Land Use Control number 3 has a high ability score of 20 to meet Goal Area 1, the DIFFERENTIAL will be zero. This means the ability of the Purchase of Development Rights land use control converges to meet the most important needs of the community, which in this example is minimizing the number of housing units affected by aircraft overflight noise. If the DIFFEREN TIAL were a large value such as 15 or 20, the ability of the land use control would diverge from meeting the particular community goal. 2. In order to determine how well each land use control meets all the goal areas based on their collective importance to the community as a whole, a MEAN

PAGE 99

91 DIFFERENTIAL is found for each control. All DIFFERENTIAL values for each control are averaged to arrive at a single value representative of the degree of convergence or divergence between the ability of the land use control to meet all the goals and the importance assigned to them. 3. The final step in the analysis and evaluation is rating each land use control for its effectiveness in meeting the community goals by the importance assigned to those goals. This results in the EFFECTIVENESS RANKING are found in the last column of Tables 5.1 and 5.2 and represented graphically in Figure 5.1 for both the longrun and short-run. 5.1.2 Summary of the Evaluation Process The entire process arriving at the final EFFECTIVE NESS RANKING is summarized as follows: 1. Nine community goal areas were listed as indicated by the issues in airport development regarding aircraft noise impacts on residential neighborhoods. 2. A general analysis of the land use controls to meet the nine goal areas was performed using literature sources, academic knowledge, and results of questionnaires sent to professionals involved in land use planning in airport environs. 3. Statements were put to informed people representing major interests in airport environs planning for the proposed Denver airport. These statements solicited

PAGE 100

0 -l\:) Vi ltrl s:Z w t;:j Vi 01 JQt"" lf/1 --s: Q ---RANKING I I I I I I I ' '• ' • ' ' Zoning '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. ' ' ""'\:: " " ' " ' ' " ' Property Acquisition '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. purchase of De velopment Rights " Avigation Easements '\ '\ '\. '\. ' ''''"'-"""'\::""'\::'\.'1 TDR's '\ '\. '\. " '\ ' '\. ' '\. '\. '\. '\. " '\. '\. '\. '\ '\. '\. Tax Incentives '\. '\ '-. '\_ ' \ '\ '\ '\. '\ '\. '\. '\. '\. ,, '\ '\. '\. ', '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. Performance Standards ' ' ' ' Capital Improvement p,q z

PAGE 101

93 a relative importance scoring of the goal areas in the metropolitan Denver community regarding aircraft noise solutions. 4. A collective {mean) importance score from the Denver area community representatives was calculated for each goal area. S. The degree of convergence or divergence was calculated between the ability analysis of each land use control to meet each goal and the importance attached to each goal. 6. A collective {mean) degree of convergence or divergence was calculated for each land use control to meet all the goals. 5.1.3 Cautions in Use of the Differential Evaluation This type of evaluation must be used with caution and the results scrutinized for value in decision making. A problem could arise in the MEAN DIFFERENTIAL values where a DIFFERENTIAL is a low value because both the Mean Importance Score and the Ability Score are.low. This could result in a favorable ranking for effectiveness. In this case, the values of the Ability Scores for a particular land use control must be looked at more closely. If Ability Scores across the matrix are typically low in meeting the stated goals, it would be incorrect to deduce from a low MEAN DIFFERENTIAL and a favorable Effectiveness Ranking that the land use control is the most effec-tive for a community. In actuality, the land use

PAGE 102

94 control is analyzed as an ineffective tool in general application. Therefore, a control which may not be ranked number one in the Effectiveness Ranking may be chosen as the most effective because it is characteristically a more effective tool but may not converge with the stated goals quite as closely as the control rated number one. 5.2 Evaluation of the Short-run Table 5.1 states the results of the evaluation process to find the most effective land use control in a short-run situation of less than five years. 5.2.1 Most Effective Land Use Control -Short-run Avigation Easements is ranked number one as the most effective land use control in the short-run for meeting all the goals according to their importance to the Denver area community. The basis for the ranking is that there is relatively little divergence between the ability of the control to meet the goals and the importance assigned to each goal. DIFFERENTIAL values are relatively small, ranging from an almost indiscernible .88 to 6.75. Therefore, the mean DIFFERENTIAL is relatively low among all the goal areas for Avigation Easements at 3.70. The largest divergence between ability to meet the goal and the importance of the goal is in Goal Area 9, Protect Airport Investment. This goal area is assigned a Mean Importance Score by the group of respondents of

PAGE 103

95 13.25, indicating the goal is not of highest, or lowest, importance. The ability of Avigation Easements to protect the investment made in the airport is rated very high, however, at 20. In this case, it appears the abil-ity of the control exceeds its need to meet the goal. On the other hand, the ability of Avigation Ease-ments to meet Goal Area 4, Minimize Effect on Land Values, comes very close to the need for it to meet that goal as indicated by the smallest DIFFERENTIAL value of .88. In this case, the Ability Score is mid-point between high ability and low ability at 10. The Mean Importance Score is very close to the middle of the range in importance at 10.88. After scrutinizing the ability scores under the caution emphasized in Section 5.1.3, -it can be seen that I the ability values coincide with a high ranking for Avigation Easements as the most effective land use tool. It scores a 20 in five goal areas and as low as ten in only one goal area. 5.2.2 Least Effective Land Use Control -Short-run Performance Standards rates as the least effective in its ability as a land use control to meet the goals of the community according to their importance. DIFFEREN-TIALS in this case reach as high as 13.38, with none below 1.75. For example, Goal Area 8, Maximize Enforce-ability by Airport, is higher than mid-way in importance to the community, being rated 14.38. However, the abil-

PAGE 104

96 ity of Performance Standards to meet the goal is very low at a value of 1. With scrutiny of Ability Scores for Performance Standards, it can be seen that this land use control rates typically low in almost all goal areas. Therefore, the determination that Performance Standards would be ranked lowest in effectiveness is consistent. 5.3 Evaluation of the Long-run Table 5.2 evaluates the selected land use controls for effectiveness in meeting the nine goal areas in the long-run of 6 to 20 years. 5.3.1 Most Effective Land Use Control -Long-run Avigation Easements again ranks number one with a MEAN DIFFERENTIAL of 3.39 in the long-run for meeting all goals according to their importance to the Denver area community. There is relatively little difference between the ability of Avigation Easements to meet the goals as a group and the importance assigned to each goal by community representatives. Avigation Easements retain their ability to meet the goals in the long-run because of the following attributes on which the General Ability Analysis in Table 4.2 is based: 1. They retain permanence over time because they are attached to the deed on a parcel of land. They can

PAGE 105

97 only be removed by the party holding the deed, in this case the airport authority. 2. They are fully enforceable legal tools. 3. Lands with easements attached are not removed from property tax rolls. 4. Positive easements warn home buyers of potential aircraft noise impacts to the property. 5. The easements releases the airport authority of liability for noise impacts. 6. There is no need for multi-jurisdictional cooperation because the airport authority assumes all responsibility of abating noise impacts. 7. Acquisition costs are low compared to implementation of some of the other land use controls. 8. Fair compensation to property owners is available by purchase of the easement. 9. The supply of residential land on the land market is not reduced substantially because residences are available to those willing to accept a healthy level of aircraft noise exposure. Weaknesses of Avigation Easements in meeting the nine goal areas are few. The weakest area is in minimizing the effect on land values. Land values may be affected somewhat by reducing the number of buyers willing to reside where warning of potential aircraft noise has been given. With fewer potential buyers, sales prices would be reduced.

PAGE 106

98 5.3.2 Least Effective Land Use Control -Long-run Tax Incentives ranks as the least effective land use control in the long run with a MEAN DIFFERENTIAL of 8.44. There exists wide discrepancies between the ability of the control to meet certain goals and the importance attached to those goals by community representatives. For instance, Goal Area 7, Maximize Permanence is rated at rather high importance of 17.88 but has an ability score of only 4, resulting in a DIFFERENTIAL of 13.88 points. The smallest DIFFERENTIAL value is 1.88 in Goal Area 4, Minimize Effect on Land Values. The rating of Tax Incentives low in effectiveness as a land use control is consistent with its Ability Scores to meet the nine goals. It scores very high in maximizing fairness through compensation and minimizing implementation costs, but very low in all other goal areas.

PAGE 107

CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Restatement of the Problem Discomfort from aircraft overflight noise to resi-dents of existing neighborhoods surrounding airports results in complaints and sometimes litigation to the airport authorities. Flight activity can be restricted by this reaction from communities, and the potential role airports play in enhancing commerce, economic develop-ment, and travel convenience can be decreased. In reaction to the problem at existing airports, noise mitigation plans are being implemented which include noise insulation, flight restrictions, and devel-opment of aircraft engine noise standards. These reactive ; measures are very expensive to put in place after the problems have developed. What are needed are methods which can be used in a proactive sense by preventing the noise and land use incompatibility problems from develop-ing. Since residences are among the most noise-sensitive land uses, land use controls which assure permanent prevention of residential development in high-noise

PAGE 108

100 impact areas of airport environs are necessary. There are many political and economic issues involved in the public policy decisions to implement controls of private land which must be addressed in selecting a proper strat-egy most acceptable to all interests. While restrictive zoning has most commonly been used in the past due to its low implementation costs, it has not proven to be highly effective. 6.2 Alternative Strategies It has been the purpose of this thesis to evaluate various proactive land use control strategies, including restrictive zoning, for political, economic, and legal implications and long-term effectiveness in meeting the needs of communities subjected to aircraft noise. Eight . alternative strategies were evaluated based on their abilities to meet nine community goals as indicated through examination of major issues related to aircraft noise and land use incompatibility. A summary of the general analysis of the eight alternative land use controls evaluated follows. 6.2.1 Restrictive Zoning Costs of implementing Restrictive Zoning are low because it does not require compensation to property owners for restricted use of the parcel through purchase or payment for reduced property value. It can cause market imbalance and is not necessarily a permanent

PAGE 109

101 control. Airport authorities do not have the power to zone land in surrounding jurisdictions, therefore a great deal of multi-jurisdictional cooperation is necessary to make a zoning program work. 6.2.2 Property Acquisition To avoid many of the problems associated with multijurisdictional cooperation, acquisition of noisesensitive parcels by the airport authority would be very useful. While local jurisdictional authority in the interest of public interest can't guarantee unlimited use rights to an airport authority, there would be considerably more control by the airport than if the parcel were owned by another party. Property Acquisition is one of the most expensive land use controls evaluated in this study because of purchase costs and also because of loss in property tax revenues when parcels are removed from tax rolls. An imbalance in the land market will occur if vast acreages are removed from the market of residential property. 6.2.3 Purchase of Development Rights Purchase of Development Rights allows permanent control over use of a property without the high cost of fee simple acquisition. Depending on access to infrastructure, the cost of development rights can still run up to 90% of the full property value, however. Purchase of residential property rights by an airport authority and

PAGE 110

102 resale as commercial or industrial property rights can reduce the overall cost through profits reaped from the more valuable intensive use rights. Property tax revenues would also increase as intensity of uses increases. A major drawback of Purchase of Development Rights is that it can cause imbalance in the land market if residential development rights are replaced by more intensive use rights which are not warranted by foreseeable demand. The tool does, however, offer fair compensation to property owners for restricting use of their property. 6.2.4 Acquisition or Dedication of Avigation Easements An affordable alternative to property acquisition is acquisition of Avigation Easements across noise-sensitive properties. Positive avigation easements allow aircraft to make noise over a property without the threat of litigation. Negative avigation easements prevent unprotected noise sensitive land uses from developing. Easements may be purchased at a fraction of the cost of the land or dedicated to the airport authority at the time of subdivision approval. Because easements are attached to property deeds they assure permanence and enforceability by the airport authority without the need for multi-jurisdictional cooperation. They also do not remove the property from tax rolls, and serve a second purpose of warning potential property owners of probable aircraft noise impacts.

PAGE 111

103 6.2.5 Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of Development Rights involves few costs to implement. However, success cannot be guaranteed because it relies heavily on multi-jurisdictional cooperation for distribution of appropriate use rights and on private sector cooperation for actual transfer of the use rights. If the system does work, it assures little effect on land market balance if proper market analysis has been performed in determining distribution of uses. Once a development right has been transferred, permanence is guaranteed by attaching deed restrictions to the transferring property. Enforceability by the airport authority would be minimal, however, because until the right has actually been transferred, zoning of the property can be changed to a noise sensitive use by the controlling local jurisdiction. 6.2.6 Tax Incentives -Differential Property Assessment The two forms of Differential Property Assessment, preferential property assessment and property tax deferral, discourage development by lowering property taxes on urban fringe properties under pressure for development and speculative buying. While it is an affordable tool because it does not require high acquisition costs, it does not provide permanence or enforceability by the airport authority. There is no guarantee property owners will participate for any length of time. In addition,

PAGE 112

104 the land market can be thrown out of balance if a disproportionate amount of acreage is removed from residential use. 6.2.7 Strict Performance Standards in Building Codes Construction of homes in noise-sensitive areas can be discouraged by local jurisdictions enforcing building codes requiring a very high level of sound insulation. Construction would be discouraged due to high costs making homes not competitive on the market. Both property values and market balance would then be affected. Multi-jurisdictional cooperation would be necessary to put the standards in place and enforce them. An airport authority would have no enforcement power or assurance that the standards would remain in force. 6.2.8 Public Capital Improvements By withholding public capital improvements such as fire, police, schools, roads, water and sewer services, development of residential neighborhoods would not be possible in high noise impact areas. Necessary multi-jurisdictional cooperation would threaten the permanence of this tool and enforceability by the airport authority. Without public improvements, even noise compatible commercial and industrial development would not be Property values would fall and the land market be affected by a shortage of available developable land.

PAGE 113

105 6.3 Community Goal Areas The nine community goal areas by which the alternative land use controls were evaluated are: 1. Minimize the number of housing units affected by aircraft overflight noise. 2. Maximize shared multi-jurisdictional responsibility in implementing land use controls. 3. Minimize effect on the land market resulting from implementation of land use controls. 4. Minimize effect on land values resulting from implementation of land use controls. 5. Maximize fairness through compensation for wind-falls or wipeouts of land values. 6. Minimize implementation costs. 7. Maximize permanence of land use controls. 8. Maximize enforceability by the airport author-ity. 9. Protect airport investment. 6.4 The Best Approach for Planning in Denver The City of Denver has a great opportunity for planning a new airport and surrounding land uses to a high level of compatibility because of large amounts of vacant land available. There is ample room for creative and complete application of any land use control chosen to be the most effective for the Denver situation.

PAGE 114

106 Results of the evaluation in Chapter V indicate that Avigation Easements would be the most effective land use control for application to prevention of incompatible residential development in the environs of Denver's proposed airport. This conclusion is based on not only an analysis of the effectiveness of each land use control in general application, but also on the goals of the community in solving the residential land use and aircraft noise problem for the future. Avigation Easements were found to be the most effective in the long run for a number of reasons. They are a land use control which cannot be easily removed over time. There is no question as to their enforceability by an airport authority, regardless of which jurisdiction the parcel an easement applies to is located in because avigation easements are a widely accepted legal tool. Costs of implementing a noise abatement program which relies heavily on avigation easements would be relatively low since entire parcels need not be acquired. The easements can most affordably be acquired through dedication at the time of subdivision platting and zoning approval for a parcel. Otherwise, purchase or condemnation would be required, both offering fair compensation for the right to .make noise over a property. Avigation Easements are a good planning tool which protects the public interest because potential home buyers are forewarned of aircraft noise impacts when

PAGE 115

107 reading the property deed. The consumer is then given a choice of whether or not to accept the noise conditions of the residence. Avigation Easements do not substantially affect the supply of residential land when compared to the effect Restrictive Zoning or Purchase of Development Rights may have. Residential uses would be allowed and compatible in the 65 or 70 LON contours if Avigation Easements were attached to them. This would retain hundreds of acres for residential uses which otherwise would be removed by zoning or removal of residential development rights by purchase. It is possible that a combination of land use controls can be used in a single noise abatement program for Denver. While Avigation Easements rated the highest in effectiveness, Purchase of Development Rights was rated very closely as another effective means and its use would be very compatible to use of Avigation Easements. Where residential development would not be acceptable with the boundaries of high noise contours, residential development rights could be purchased by the airport authority. The combination of the more expensive purchase of development rights strategy with the less expensive acquisition of avigation easements could provide an affordable and effective program for Denver.

PAGE 116

108 6.5 General Policy Recommendations The General Analysis of Abilities for Controls to Meet Goals in the short-and long-run as summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 provide a basis for making general policy recommendations applicable to implementing environs planning in any airport situation. A Mean Ability Score for each land use control in the short-and longrun without the weighting of the goal areas from the Denver situation is shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. These are then ranked relative to each other to find the strategies with most ability to meet the goals in general application. The results of this evaluation are not intended to be a strict rule for selecting the most effective land use controls for every airport planning situation. It is instead intended as a guide by which to begin evaluation for a particular situation. Customized importance scores from a specific community situation can be interjected into the basic framework of the General Analysis shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Planners may replace the ability scores shown in the General Analysis with their own scores. New calculations for the DIFFERENTIAL evaluation can then be run and results used in decision making in environs planning for that particular airport planning project.

PAGE 117

--------------------. .. TABLE 6 . 1 GENERAL ANALYSIS AND RANKING OF ABILITY FOR CONTROLS TO MEET GOALS Short Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IMPACT Minimize Maximize Minimize Minimize Maximize Minimize Maximize Maximize Protect CATEGORY Housing Shared Effect Effect Fairness Implemen PermaEnforce-Airport MEAN ABILITY GOAL Units Res ponsOn Land on Land Through tation nence ability Invest-ABILITY RANKING AREAS Affected ibility Market Values Compen-Costs by ment S CORE By Noise sat ion Airport ••••••••as::: :s:s::::::== ======== ======== ======== ======:as ====== ==z=====• =•=z==== ======== ====:::=== ======== LAND U S E CONTROLS ABILITY SCORES 1. Zoning I I I I I I I I I Restrictions 20 15 11 7 1 19 15 1 15 11.56 5 2. Property I I I I I I I I I I Acquisition 12 18 14 17 19 5 20 20 20 16.11 3 3. Purchase I I I I I I I I I I Development Rights 20 20 11 11 20 9 20 20 20 16.78 2 4. Avigationl I I I I I I I . I I Easements 20 20 15 10 17 13 20 20 20 17.22 1 I I I I I I I I I I 5 . TOR's 11 11 17 11 16 18 17 1 7 12.11 4 6. Tax I I I I I I I I I I Incentives 11 11 13 9 19 20 11 1 9 11.56 5 7. Perform. I I I I I I I I I I Standards 9 11 13 5 1 20 11 1 9 8.89 7 8. Capital I I I I I I I I I I Improvements 20 11 9 9 1 20 15 1 15 11.22 6 •••==•••==•=l==z========================================•c:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•=====================l======== ======== RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 Excellent ability: 1 Poor Ability to meet goals 109

PAGE 118

IMPACT CATEGORY GOAL AREAS 1 Minimize Housing Units Affected By Noise rBbE GENERAL ANALYSIS AND RANKING OF ABILITY FOR CONTROLS TO MEET GOALS -Long Run 2 3 4 Maximize Minimize Minimize Shared Effect Effect ResponsOn Land on Land ibility Market Values 5 Maximize Fairness Through Compensation 6 1 Minimize Maximize Implemen Perma-tation nence Costs 8 Maximize Enforceability by Airport 9 Protect Airport Invest-ment MEAN ABILITY SCORE ABILITY RANKING ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========= ======== ======== ======== ======== LAND USE CONTROLS 1. Zoning Restrictions 2. Property I Acquisition 3. Purchase Development Rights I 4. Avigationl Easements 5. TOR's 20 1 11 19 20 20 20 20 11 1 ABILITY SCORES I I 11 1 I 11 17 I 11 12 I 15 11 15 9 1 20 8 1 1 19 11 20 20 20 19 11 20 20 20 17 15 20 20 20 15 19 18 1 7 I I I I I I I I I I 6. Tax Incentives 1 1 5 9 19 20 4 1 5 1. Perform. I I I I I I I I I I Standards 9 1 9 5 1 20 1 1 5 8. Capital I I I I I I I I I I 9.11 16.44 17.00 17.56 11.33 8.56 7.11 Improvements 20 1 1 1 1 20 11 1 13 9.67 ===========1========1========1========1========1========1========1==============1========1======== RELATIVE SCORING SCALE: 20 Excellent Ability; 1 Poor Ability to meet goal 110 6 3 2 1 4 7 8 5

PAGE 119

6.6 Defense of Original Thesis Statements 6.6.1 Defense of Thesis Statement Number One The first hypothesis set out to be proven in the thesis is: Traditional zoning is not the most effective land use control tool for preventing residential development in the high noise impact areas of airports. Restrictive Zoning is the land use control most 111 commonly used for abatement of aircraft noise effects on residential neighborhoods as stated in Chapter I. The evaluation in Table 5.2 shows that it is not the most effective land use control in the long-run, however, for Denver. With a MEAN DIFFERENTIAL rating of 6.52, a fairly large discrepancy is shown between the ability of zoning to meet the nine goals and the importance scores of the goals. In addition, Table 6.2 shows Restrictive Zoning is not the most effective tool in general applica-tion either, rating at sixth out of the eight alternative controls. A closer look at each goal area in Table 5.2 reveals the basis of the MEAN DIFFERENTIAL value calculated for Restrictive Zoning. Goal Area 1, Minimize Housing Units Affected By Noise is scored 18.40, the highest in impor-tance by community representatives. It also received a high ability score of 20 in the Abilities Analysis to meet that goal. Therefore, there is very little discrep-ancy between the two. Goal Area 3, Minimize Effect On

PAGE 120

112 Land Market also shows a small DIFFERENTIAL value because the ability score and Mean Importance Score are very close. While Zoning can have a sizable effect on the land market by excluding residential uses and over-zoning for more noise compatible commercial and industrial uses, this is not an important consideration to the community representatives who scored it as a group at 11.25 on the importance scale of 1 to 20. Restrictive zoning begins to fall short of meeting the goals according to their importance in Goal Areas 4 and 6, with DIFFERENTIALS of 3.88. However, this is still an acceptable value when considering the range of MEAN DIFFERENTIAL values in the final calculations. Land Values can be affected by zoning for more intensive, more compatible uses, but this is not an important consideration to the community representatives as indicated by a Mean Importance Score of only 10.88. Minimizing Implementation Costs did score fairly high in importance at 16.13, and can be well met by zoning because there are no land acquisition costs involved. The less acceptable discrepancies appear in Goal Area 2, Maximize Shared Responsibility, Goal Area 7, Maximize Permanence, and Goal Area 9, Protect Airport Investment. These show DIFFERENTIAL values ranging from 6.25 to 9.88. Zoning decisions are not permanent commitments from the various jurisdictions involved. Even signed inter-jurisdictional agreements intending a high

PAGE 121

113 level of cooperation have not always been kept. Because there is no guarantee of lasting restrictions to residen-tial development in high noise impact areas, the invest-ment in the airport cannot be assured protection from community pressure to restrict flight activity. Goal Areas 5, Maximize Fairness Through Compensation and Goal Area 8, Maximize Enforceability by Airport severely weaken the effectiveness of Restrictive Zoning with DIFFERENTIAL values as high as 13.38. The public policy decisions resulting in Restrictive Zoning do not provide compensation to property owners for windfalls or wipeouts in land values if based on sound comprehensive planning. There can be a distinct feeling of unfairness by those suffering the wipeout. Enforcement of Restric-tive Zoning is a problem because an airport authority does not have authority to zone land in neighboring jurisdictions, and therefore, has no control over enforcement of it as a land use control. 6.6.2 Defense of Thesis Statement Number Two The second hypothesis set out to be proven in the thesis is: Proactive land use control tools which are more effective than traditional Euclidean zoning can be implemented to prevent residential development in the high noise impact environs of airports. The defense of Thesis Statement Number One leads to defense of the second statement. Based on the analysis and evaluation presented in the thesis, Restrictive

PAGE 122

114 Zoning does not meet the needs of communities and airport authorities for prevention of residential development in high noise impact areas of airports. Using the results of the evaluation specific to Denver, Table 5.2 points out land use controls which would be more effective than Restrictive Zoning in preventing residential development in high noise impact areas while still meeting a number of related goals including economic considerations for surrounding Denver communities. General Analysis without applying weighted importance scores for a particular community in Table 6.2 results in similar conclusions. Avigation Easements, Purchase of Development Rights, and Property Acquisition rate high in ability to meet the unweighted goals, with Restrictive Zoning placing at sixth out of the eight land use control alternatives. One or a combination of other land use controls such as Avigation Easements, Purchase of Development Rights, and Property Acquisition would be more effective in the long-run. The evaluations show that these controls allow for meeting the following broad range of community goals more effectively than Restrictive Zoning does: 1. Minimize the number of housing units affected by aircraft overflight noise. 2. Maximize shared multi-jurisdictional responsibility in implementing land use controls.

PAGE 123

3. Minimize effect on the land market resulting from implementation of land use controls. 115 4. Minimize effect on land values resulting from implementation of land use controls. 5. Maximize fairness through compensation for wind-falls or wipeouts of land values. 6. Minimize implementation costs. 7. Maximize permanence of land use controls. 8. Maximize enforceability by the airport author-ity. 9. Protect airport investment. 6.6.3 Cautions On Strict Interpretation of Results Results of the evaluation performed in the thesis should not be interpreted as strict quantification of solutions to the land use and aircraft noise compatibility problem. One of the stated constraints of the study is the limitation inherent in applying numerical values to human judgments. The results of the evaluation contained in the thesis are based on one researcher's knowledge of land use controls and interpretation of that knowledge transformed into quantitative Ability Scores; and on the informed opinions of representatives in the Denver area communities regarding the nine stated goal areas at one point in time transformed into quantitative Importance Scores. Another researcher may very likely attach different Ability Scores using the same knowledge base to each land use control. Other community represen-

PAGE 124

116 tatives from the same metropolitan area or from other metropolitan areas considering construction of a new airport would undoubtedly place varying Importance Scores on the goal areas. Slight differences in scoring may result in slightly different ability and effectiveness rankings for the alternative land use controls. Large differences in Mean Importance Scores assigned by various communities would result in very different land use controls being selected as the most effective in meeting the nine goal areas than those selected in this evaluation.

PAGE 125

BIBLIOGRAPHY Airport Land Use Planning Handbook -A Reference and Guide for Local Agencies. Prepared for the California Dept. of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, July, 1983. American Association of Airport Executives. "Aviation News Briefs". Airport Report Newsletter, Vol. XXXIII No. 5, Alexandria, Va., March 1, 1987. Be l, Robert B. and Bell, Lisa M. "Airport Noise: Legal Developments and Economic Alternatives". Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 8 #4, 1980. Bj]rk, Gordon c. Life, Liberty, and Property -The Economics and Politics of Land-use Planning and Environmental Controls. Lexington, Mass., 1980. Bl ckman, Joni H. "City's Future Rosy, New Study Predicts". I Denver Post , October 8, 1986. Booz-Allen $ Hamilton, Inc. and Browne, Bortz and Coddington. The Regional Economic Impact of Stapleton International Airport and Future Airport Development. The Colorado Forum, Sept. 9, 1986. Civil Action No. 81-CV-2729, District Court, City J and County of Denver, State of Colorado, Amended Stipulation for Dismissal and Order, Judgment, and Decree. September 29, 1985. Ca ter, Larry W. Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw I Hill, 1977. Cl rk, Thomas A. "Cost Effectiveness Analysis". Unpublished, 1985. Da key, Norman c., Rourke, DanielL., Lewis, Ralph, and Snyder, David. Studies in the Quality of Life -Delphi and Decision Making. Lexington, Ky., 1972. De ver Regional Council of Governments. Southwest General Aviation Airport Site Selection/Master Plan/EIAR. 1979.

PAGE 126

El lickson, Robert c. and Tarlock, A. Dan. Land-Use Controls: Cases and Materials. Boston, 1981. 118 Gr]y, Frank. Presentation to the Denver Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, October 24, 1986. Ha ris, Miller, Miller, and Hanson, Inc. Final Noise Report and Noise Mitigation Plan for Stapleton International Airport, March, 1984. Ko alski, Robert. New Airport". "Adams Officials Endorse Runway Plan for Denver Post, Dec. 17, 1986. Ma delker, Daniel R. "Critical Area Controls: A New Dimension in American Land Development Regulation". Journal of the American Planning Assoc., Vol. 41, Jan. 1975. Me llister, Donald M. Evaluation in Environmental Planning -Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic, and Political Trade-offs. Cambridge, Mass., 1980. Me ean, Bill. "11,800-acre Aurora Annexation Biggest Yet". Denver Post, Dec. 9, 1986. Me ean, Bill. "Aurora OKs Mixed-Use Zoning for Land East of the New Airport". Denver Post, January 15, 1987. . The National Environmental Policy Act of T91-190, 91st Congress, S. 1075, Jan., 1970. ---+-Noise Control and Compatibility Planning Airports, Advisory Circular AC 150/5020-1. Aviation Administration, August 5, 1983. 1969, PL for Federal Ow ns, James E. "An Overview o f Compatible Land Use Planning Techniques for Military A i r Installations". Masters Thesis, Univ. of Florida, Civil Engineering Dept., 1985. Riahman, Hershel J. and Kendig, Lane H. "Transferable Development Rights -A Pragmatic View". Environmental Comment, April, 1978. Saalkman, Harold. Delphi Critique -Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group P rocess. Lexington, Mass., 1975. Sussman, Gennifer and Gray, Frank. Implications of the Construction of Major New Airport Facilities for Economic Development i n the Metro Denver Region. Denver New Airport Development Office, September, _L1986. • The Protection of Farmland: A Reference Guidebook

PAGE 127

119 for State and Local Governments, National Agricultural Lands Study. Regional Science Research Institute, Amherst, Mass., no date. Untaxing Open Space: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Open Space, Council on Environmental Quality, April, 1976. Ve zey, Richard F. Introductory Speech to DRCOG Airport Land Use Workshop. October 20, 1986. Wo fe, Harry. A Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport on Surface Transportation and Land Use. Council for Advanced Transportation Studies, Univ. of Texas at Austin, April, 1974. Wo f, Peter. Land In America -Its Value, Use, and Control. New York, 1981.

PAGE 128

APPENDIX A AIRPORT LAND USE CONTROLS QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 129

121 AIRPORT LAND USE CONTROLS QUESTIONNAIRE NO E: Some of the questions below ask for measurements which may beJapproximated if exact recent figures are not available. If space for answers is needed, space is provided at the end of thl questionnaire. I. GENERAL INFORMATION Na l e of Respondent(s) Ti le Phone ---------------------------Ai port Name -------------------------------------------------------Control Jurisdiction . 1evel of government ----------------------------------------A1iport Classification To al annual passenger enplanements --------------------------------Size of airport proper in acres? -------------------------------------II LAND USE CONTROLS 1. Circle the letter of the type of control(s) utilized off the ai port proper for the purpose of preventing land uses in ompatible with airport operations. a. Restrictive Zoning Use Restricted Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Open Space Developed Park Other Public Acreage Restricted b. Purchased Development Rights (Deed Restrictions) Development Right Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Other Acreage

PAGE 130

• 122 c. Avigation Easements (circle means used in acquiring easements) Dedication Purchase Approximate acreage in easements d. Transfer of Development Rights Types of development rights transferable out of high noise impact area? --------------------------------------------------Types of development rights transferable into area high noise impact area? -------------------------------------------e. Tax incentives for Preservation of Farmlands or Open Space Acreage potentially participating __________ _ Acreage currently participating -------------f. Property Acquisition (fee simple) Acreage acquired or to be acquired Was this property acquired through a land banking process? Yes No h. Performance Standards (Building Code regulations for noise insulation) Description of standard Maximum noise level mitigated to --------------------------g. Other Acreage affected ---------------------------------------------2. Total off-airport acres under land use controls. -------------II • EFFECT OF LAND USE CONTROLS ON LAND VALUES Pl ase answer the following questions based on your perception an understanding of the land market surrounding your airport. = No noticeable effect 2 = Some effect 3 = Great effect 1. Has implementation of the above land use controls had an ef ect on real property values in the local area? 1 2 3 Did property values rise? -------fall? --------both? --------

PAGE 131

123 2. Has restriction of allowed uses by the above controls caused no iceable redistribution of property values throughout the local ar a? 1 2 3 3. Has demand for land for certain uses exceeded the supply? 1 2 3 4. Has supply for land for certain uses exceeded the demand? 1 2 3 5. Has government made any attempt to tax property owners for in reases in land values caused by implementation of the land use co trol? Yes No If so, please describe how. ------------------------------------------6. Has government made any attempt to compensate property owners for reduction in land values caused by implementation of the land use control? Yes No If so, please describe how. ------------------------------------------IV. COSTS 1. What has been the approximate cost of implementing the land controls? (Cost of property acquisition, development rights, rred taxes, etc.) --------------------------------------------------2. Who paid the cost of implementing the land use controls? (Ai port authority, city, special assessment, federal grants, etc.) ____________________________________________________________ _ V. SUCCESS OF LAND USE CONTROL Plepse answer the following questions based on your perception of theldegree of success of land use controls toward preventing land use incompatible with airport operations. Use the following sea e where applicable or actual or approximated figures where app icable. 1 = None 2 = Some 3 = Very Much 1. Number of years since land use controls were implemented. 2. Is all or part of the controlled acreage under pressure for dev lopment? 1 2 3 3. Are decision makers under pressure from developers to remove lane use controls?

PAGE 132

124 1 2 3 4. Have any parcels initially placed under land use controls ha d the se controls removed and been allowed to develop as the market die tates? 1 2 3 If so, approximate acreage removed from controls . 5. Using a number between 1 and 10 and the scale below, how you rate the overall effectiveness or success of the land us . controls you specified toward preventing land uses inJompatible with your airport? 1 J Total failure Land use controls have not been enforced at al or have been removed easily allowing incompatible land uses to develop to a great extent. 5 Moderately successful -Land use controls have not been en orced some of the time, allowing incompatible land uses to deJelop occasionally. 10 = Totally successful -Incompatible land uses have not de eloped at all due to strict enforcement of land use cor. trols. RATING factors do you view as being instrumental in the success or fa'lure of the land use controls you specified? VI. MAPS AND STUDIES I have enclosed maps and studies pertaining to airport land :ruse incompatibility with this questionnaire and studies may be obtained from VIII ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: I I

PAGE 133

• APPENDIX B IMPACT CATEGORIES RATING SHEET AND DESCRIPTION OF CONTROLS

PAGE 134

126 IMPACT CATEGORIES RATING SHEET Ci cle interest position: Developer Resident Public Planner Elected Official Other ---------------------Based on your knowledge, experience, interests you rep esent on the Airport Advisory Committee, and the attached information sheet, rate the goal statements below for their relative importance to you in development of a new airport and compatible land uses. Use the scale of 1 to 1 being the most important, 20 being the least imp rtant. Your response to the statements below should be ind pendent from judgements of other members of the Citizen Adv'sory Committee and will be kept in confidence. Impact Category Goal Areas 1. Minimize the number of residential units affected by aircraft overflight noise within the 65 LDN and greater noise contours. Importance Rating (1 -20) 2. Maximize inter-governmental cooperation and responsibility in preventing development of land uses incompatible to airport operations . 3. Minimize interference w ith demand/supply balance of the land market and prices for residential, commercial, and industrial lands. 4. Minimize effect on land values caused by implementation of land use controls. 5. Minimize monetary costs to the general public of implementing land use controls. 6. Maximize protection of the airport to operate safely and efficiently. 7. Maximize permanence of land use controls designed to prevent incompatible development. 8. Maximize the airport's ability to control land use to prevent incompatible development.

PAGE 135

9. Maximize fairness through compensation for land value gains or losses caused by land use controls. 127