The City enforces the existing Airport Noise Control Program adopted by City Resolution No. 57211.
The Airport Noise Control Program was adapted by the City of San Jose to mitigate noise pollution. It is a basic underlying assumption of the EIR. Without its continued existence, air pollution, noise impacts and the 65 CNEL contour would dramatically worsen.
he City of San Jose has not enforced the Noise Control Program. Violations of the program are continuing and numerous. No court has ever adjudicated the legality and enforceability of the Noise Control Program. Perhaps more importantly, no Federal or State Court of Appeal has ever considered the validity and enforceability of the Noise Control Program. Lax record keeping, mismanagement, and ineffective enforcement, have combined to erode citizen confidence.
Because of recent Federal legislation, the City of San Jose can no longer amend, modify, or recreate the Noise Control Program. Good planning dictates that, prior to implementation of the Airport Master Plan, a review period be established to demonstrate the city's ability to strictly enforce the Noise Control Program.
SJC will become quieter due to the elimination of Stage 2 aircraft and by other fleet mix changes.
The projected noise impacts described in the EIR are predicated on two basic assumptions. A critical assumption is that all Stage Two commercial aircraft will be eliminated at SJC by the year 2000. This assumption is based upon Federal legislation which mandates that Stage Two aircraft be eliminated from domestic service by the year 2000 or 2003. However, this deadline may be legislatively modified. A review of the history of the phase out of Stage One aircraft to Stage Two aircraft suggests that the anticipated transition may not proceed in a timely manner.
Nationally, the percentage of Stage Two operations is still very large. In fact, as of March, 1996, Delta, Continental, Northwest and TWA had an average Stage Three fleet of only 56%. It is difficult to imagine how all these aircraft will be replaced with Stage Three aircraft in the next three years.
In reality, noise pollution at SJC affects thousands of citizens outside the 65 CNEL noise boundary. Moreover, it is the number of noise events (i.e. the frequency of departures and landings) that will make our future noisier. The Project Case proposes to increase major airline, commuter and all cargo operations by more than 100%. This huge increase and the frequency of noise events can only make our homes and neighborhoods noisier.
CAAP supporters are opposed to all future airport development.
CAAP believes that San Jose deserves a first class, modern and convenient airport. We only oppose airport pollution and have recommended to the city, over a period of years, numerous strategies to reduce pollution at the source.
Early in the Master Planning process, CAAP proposed "Alternative Eight" which involved the accomplishment of various environmental benchmarks or triggers before future capacity enhancements would be built. This strategy encouraged the accelerated phase out of Stage Two jets and the utilization of quieter and cleaner Stage Three aircraft. It did not dictate the size of the airport.
Presently, CAAP recommends the following strategies to reduce air pollution impacts, noise pollution and increased surface traffic congestion.
The airport is getting quieter.
Noise is a combination of types of aircraft and frequency of flights. Capacity enhancements and elimination of most of the General Aviation will allow for a frequency of flights at SJC that will not be compensated for even with a totally stage 3 fleet mix. Since 1992 there has been a 176% increase in jet arrivals and departures during curfew hours while total jet flights have increased only 38% during the same years!
All stage 3 aircraft operations will make the airport quieter.
Given that we are 94% stage 3 at the present time, it is unlikely that the final 6% spread out over a 3-5 year period will make a noticeable difference in current noise levels.
The airport fines airlines for curfew violations.
No provisions for charging fines was ever part of the San Jose Noise Control Program. The only enforcement mechanism available to the city is through lease and operating agreements.
Airport growth will not conflict with downtown development.
It already does. The airport dictates the height of all buildings and our skyline will never rival that of other major cities in the US. Airport noise interrupts outdoor activities such as enjoying a meal or conversation at a sidewalk café, as well as participation in cultural events and festivals. San Jose's Fourth of July celebration is just another example of how airport growth impacts downtown events. Fireworks displays are later in San Jose than in any other Bay Area city, and are not scheduled until 10:00 PM, far too late for young children or those who must work early in the morning to enjoy.
We need two full length air-carrier runways.
The Master Plan Update indicates that because of airfield constraints, a second air-carrier runway will add only 2% capacity to SJC and is not required for growth at SJC. If the council determines that a second full runway is desirable for prestige, that runway does not need to be weight rated for continuous use.
The Noise Control Program protects us from scheduled flights within curfew hours.
Presently we experience two scheduled flights per day from commercial aircraft during curfew hours. These flights are Continental and Delta turbo prop commuter service currently departing San Jose at 6:00 am and arriving in San Jose after midnight, at 12:40 AM. Again, since 1992 there has been a 176% increase in jet arrivals and departures during curfew hours while total jet flights have increased only 38% during the same years!
The airport would be shut down for 6-9 months without the construction of a second runway.
The current air-carrier runway 12R/30L can be rebuilt, at a higher cost, than construction of a new runway on 12L/30R and without the city relinquishing control of usage on the existing 12L/30R runway. The additional construction costs of 3-5% would be justified in allowing city government to maintain control and future use of that runway. Rebuilding 30L while maintaining local control, while preserving neighborhoods, and while protecting future growth options deserves serious consideration.
A Hush House will be considered if we experience more than 4 high-powered run-ups per month.
Mestre Greve Associates, consultants for the SJC Noise Attenuation Feasibility Study, recommended that a run-up facility should be considered for construction if the number of jet full power run-up increases to at or above prior levels. Full power was defined as 100% or take-off power. Changes in terminology for monthly reporting instituted by airport staff immediately after the consultant's recommendation suggest that it is inconceivable that nighttime full power run-ups will be conducted at SJC. Monthly noise reports do not list full power run-ups and have combined them with high-power run-ups (over 90%). Mestre Greve Associates defined high-power run-ups as anything above idle. No independent auditing committee exists to monitor nighttime engine run-ups.
The Noise Control Program will continue to protect residents from increased noise.
Our airport director admitted on April 30, 1997, that he does not enforce the engine run-up provisions of our Noise Control Program. Again, since 1992 there has been a 176% increase in jet arrivals and departures during curfew hours while total jet flights have increased only 38% during the same years!
Airport Noise Advisory Committee (ANAC) adequately addresses community concerns.
ANAC is a tool of the airport department. Since it's inception it has been unable to deliver any meaningful relief to the neighborhoods. There is no public agency charged with enforcing city policy and protecting citizens from airport pollution.
The monthly Noise Reports accurately indicate noise the neighborhoods experience.
Citizens who complain too often have their total number of complaints reduced by staff to one complaint per month. No one knows how many "too many" complaints is. Callers can no longer leave a message about specific flights, airport staff no longer responds to noise complaints and Turbo-prop service (commuter flights) data is no longer included on monthly noise reports.
The Airport Department is able to police themselves.
The public has lost all confidence in a department who admits they don't enforce all provisions of our Noise Control Program. The department has been aware since the early 1980's that SJC is a noise impacted airport operating under a variance from state noise standards. To be less than vigilant in curfew enforcement is inexcusable. To imply, by skewing complaint numbers, that citizens bothered by noise, are "odd", is unforgivable. Why the number of curfew penetrations is increasing at an alarming rate is inexplicable. Neither the department, ANAC or the Airport Commission has demonstrated any real effort to address citizens complaints about increased noise, inaccurate record keeping, chronic curfew penetrations by the same flights several times each month, nighttime engine run-ups, altered flight paths, overflights, etc.