The Board of Supervisors on June 27 unanimously approved funding for: an airport communications specialist to work with the public and pilots; hiring a contractor to investigate new air routes that avoid residences; and putting in place an automated flight tracking system tied to the noise complaint system.

Supervisor Don Horsley said county officials have met with thousands of people affected by the noise from Surf Air's turbo-prop PC-12 planes over the four years since Surf Air began using the airport. "We're not talking about a handful of people," he said. "This is a considerable issue."

"We're trying to fix a severe problem caused by Surf Air operations," Supervisor Dave Pine said. Before Surf Air began using the airport for regularly scheduled fights, the airport was considered "a good neighbor," by the community, he said.

More than $1 million in spending over three years has been approved by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors as part of a multi-pronged plan crafted in response to a wave of complaints about noisy aircraft at the San Carlos Airport since Surf Air began using the airport in 2013.

This graphic shows the flights over the Bay Area on March 31, 2017. The dark green tracks near the center of the map are the San Carlos Airport. (Courtesy San Mateo County)

"There is a curfew on the table that the county believes will hold up in court," North Fair Oaks resident Adam Ullman told the supervisors. "Please put the curfew in place," he said. "We need relief now. Take a look at those other options concurrently."

Mr. Porter outlined a proposed noise-management program for the airport. Conspicuously absent from the plan is the curfew earlier proposed by the county , which would have limited flights at night and early mornings. Many residents and the Atherton City Council had supported the curfew.

County Public Works Director Jim Porter said that while he hasn't added up how much money the county has already spent responding to Surf Air-related problems at the airport, it is "several hundred thousand dollars."

Surf Air pilots have also been told to use minimum engine power as they arrive at the San Carlos Airport, she said.

In the meantime, Surf Air spokeswoman Angela Vargo says the airline is making a number of changes that should reduce the noise from its planes, including flying over the Bay whenever possible to avoid homes on the Midpeninsula. The company is also seeking permission to increase the flying altitude over neighborhoods such as Sunnyvale and Cupertino, which it passes over when using the Bay route. Surf Air has asked to increase its altitude from 3,000 feet to up to 6,000 feet, when conditions allow.

Atherton Mayor Mike Lempres said the council asked that the proposed ordinances be submitted to the FAA because council members understand such regulations must be approved by the FAA. However, "the town would be happy to be wrong on that one," he said.

All Atherton's City Council members signed a June 23 letter asking the county to take these immediate actions: submit to the Federal Aviation Administration proposed county ordinances that would create a curfew on flights and limit the number of scheduled flights per operator at the San Carlos Airport; and adopt a resolution declaring the airport has a "noise problem" and send the resolution to the California Department of Transportation.

She said the earliest scheduled departure from San Carlos is at 6 a.m. and the latest arrival is at 10 p.m.

On June 29, however, Ms. Vargo provided July flight numbers for the San Carlos Airport. She said Surf Air will have 20 round trips each weekday, five on Saturday and nine on Sunday, for a total of 114 round trips (or 228 flights) each week.

Exactly how many Surf Air flights now use the San Carlos Airport has been remarkably difficult to determine. The airline does not publish its schedule. Ms. Kiner said the airline has 19 round trips on weekdays, but Surf Air spokeswoman Angela Vargo said in a press release on June 27 that the airline has 22 round trips on weekdays.

The flights are at between 3,500 and 4,000 feet in altitude when they pass over those communities, while they are about 1,200 feet when they pass over Menlo Park, Deputy Director of Airports Rochelle Kiner said.

When Surf Air uses an alternative route that takes it over the Bay, avoiding most Midpeninsula homes, flights go over parts of Sunnyvale and Cupertino.

One issue the consultants examining new routes for the airport will have to consider is the complaints that have been made about Surf Air from residents of Sunnyvale and Cupertino.

The new communications specialist will help relieve other county employees who have been dealing with the complaints about Surf Air.

The county is also considering charging landing fees on charter operators (which includes Surf Air) and purchasing mobile noise monitors that could be placed in residents' yards, Mr. Porter said.

Supervisor Canepa predicted it could be two or three years before new routes could be approved, but Mr. Porter said the county hopes to "fast track" the proposals and get FAA authorization within 18 months.

"In my experience, working with the FAA is a tortuous process," said Supervisor David Canepa, who previously served on the San Francisco International Airport Roundtable working on SFO-related noise issues.

It could take more than year, however, Mr. Porter said, to get Federal Aviation Administration approval of new flight paths.

Within six months, the county also wants to: develop new procedures that could minimize noisy arrivals and departures; expand voluntary noise procedures for helicopters (which residents have also been complaining about); hire the communications specialist and put the tracking system into place; and come up with incentives for pilots who comply with a voluntary curfew.

Mr. Porter said that within the next six months, the county wants consultants Hughes Aerospace to look at new flight paths "that minimize flights over residential neighborhoods" for all aircraft, even under conditions that require instrument flights, such as fog or rain.

The website appeared to have no requirement that actual names, addresses, phone numbers or email addresses be used in order to send the automated message.

Clicking on the ad took readers to a page asking them to oppose something that hadn't been proposed . "Oppose the county proposal that would shut down air service at San Carlos Airport," it said. The message said that the "San Mateo Board of Supervisors is considering restricting Surf Air’s aircraft operations at the San Carlos Airport," although nothing on the supervisors' agenda would have had that effect.

There appears to have been a political campaign against a flight curfew, even though a proposal for a curfew wasn't on the supervisors' agenda. A group called " Keep San Mateo Flying " recently bought Facebook ads urging people to go to a website that sends automated emails to the supervisors.

UPDATED - County approves spending $1 million to search for airport noise solutions

Current work plan does not include curfew for San Carlos Airport users