CAAP and the Nighttime Curfew

A central assumption of the Airport Master Plan EIR is that San Jose's Noise Control Program (the curfew) is valid and enforceable. If that assumption is incorrect, the entire Airport Master Plan is defective and illegal. CAAP wants the City of San Jose to prove in court that the Noise Control Program (the curfew) is valid and enforceable before it goes forward with future airport development.

Once the Airport Master Plan has been fully implemented, a challenge by the airlines or other business interests, contesting the enforceability of our curfew, could be devastating. San Jose would have a hugely expanded airport with little or no control over airport operations round the clock. We need to know the truth. If the curfew is valid and enforceable everyone will be happy. If the curfew is invalid we need to know before the massive airport build-out is complete. In this way, the City would still have significant leverage to withhold approval of major airport expansion until our curfew could be made legal and enforceable.

Recently, Councilman David Pandori has expressed concern that CAAP's lawsuit may expose San Jose's Noise Control Program to be invalid. Such a result would invalidate the entire Airport Master Plan and require the city council to reevaluate its Airport Master Plan from scratch.

If the City is so confident that the Noise Control Program is legally valid and enforceable, why is Councilman David Pandori so concerned? What does the City of San Jose know that we don't?

The truth of the matter is simple. Our curfew is important to the neighborhoods. We want the City of San Jose to enforce it religiously. Unfortunately, despite the fact that it has been violated on hundreds of occasions, the Noise Control Program has never been tested in the courts. Why not? Could it be that the City itself lacks confidence that it can be successfully enforced? What will happen to the neighborhoods if the huge Airport expansion is built, and then we discover that the Noise Control Program was invalid under Federal law? Who will protect us then?

Councilman Pandori has counseled CAAP to avoid testing the legality of the curfew and to assume that it is valid. We certainly hope it is. The City has been assuring us of this for many years. However, to our knowledge, the Federal Aviation Administration has not taken the position that our curfew is valid and enforceable under Federal law. Furthermore, recent changes to Federal law have raised important questions about the validity of San Jose's Noise Control Program.

The truth of the matter is this. We better find out now if the Noise Control Program is valid. It's a basic underlying assumption for the Airport Master Plan EIR. If the City is wrong we better find out before the huge airport expansion is implemented. Otherwise, we will all pay a terrible price. If the curfew is invalid the City should withhold approval of major airport expansion until our curfew can be made legal and enforceable.

Don't be fooled by the argument that we should pretend that the curfew is valid and enforceable. Airline and other business interests may not hesitate to challenge our Noise Control Program once the airport is fully expanded.

CAAP Expands Lawsuit

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, mandates that Federal funds cannot be used to promote projects that create discriminatory impacts on the basis of race, color or national origin. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act specifically prohibits a recipient (City of San Jose) from determining the site or location of facilities (the airport) with the purpose or effect of excluding persons from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discriminatory impacts, under any program or project to which the law applies on the grounds of race, color or national origin.

CAAP expects that this environmental justice cause of action may take longer to litigate than the other issues in our lawsuit and as such, CAAP may seek to bifurcate this issue for trial. In addition, CAAP is still expecting to file a federal lawsuit in the near future to halt airport expansion.

Highlights from CAAP Lawyers' Resumes

In 1993, Rose and Susan joined together to represent citizens groups in historic preservation and environmental land use cases with an emphasis in the California Environmental Quality Act. Here are some of their respective career highlights.

Susan Brandt-Hawley

• Undergraduate Education: B.A. Philosophy, magna cum laude , San Diego State University, 1973 Phi Beta Kappa
• Admitted to the California and Federal Bar in 1977
• President, Sonoma County Bar Association, 1992
• Trustee, California Preservation Foundation, 1991-1997
• Representative Clients: Airport Action Committee, Sierra Club, Russian River Task Force, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project, Citizens for Alternative Water Solutions, Mendocino Environmental Center, Surfrider Foundation, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, Southern California Society of Architectural Historians, North Oakland Voters Alliance, National Trust for Historic Preservation
• Argued cases before California Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and Federal District Court

Rose M. Zoia

• Undergraduate Education: B.A., Political Science and Social Work, summa cum laude , Ohio University, 983; Phi Beta Kappa
• Legal Education: Juris Doctor, cum laude , George Washington University National Law Center, 1983
• Admitted to the California Bar and Federal Bar, District of California in 1988
• President, Sonoma County Bar Association, 1996
• Representative clients include: Proponents of Proper Planning in Windsor, Mark West Creek Preservation Assoc., West County Environmental Protection Assoc. Co-counsel: Russian River Task Force, Cache Creek River Basin Resource Coalition, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project, Citizens for Alternative Water Solutions, Citizens for Historic Preservation, Sacramento Old City Assoc., Sacramento Art Deco Society.

Support This Bill!

Such responsibility will go to the EPA, whose charge it is to protect the public health and the environment. HR 536 would require EPA to:

• coordinate all federal noise abatement activities,
• update and develop noise standards,
• provide assistance to local communities, and
• promote research/education on the impacts of various noise sources--airplanes and others.

Congress members to be contacted are Tom Campbell (371-7337), Anna Eshoo (245-2339), and Pete Stark (510-494-1388). Congress members receive mail c/o Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515.

Our Senators, Dianne Feinstein (415-249-4777) and Barbara Boxer (415-403-0100), need to hear from you as well. Both receive mail c/o Hart Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20510. E-mail: senator@boxer.senate.gov and senator@feinstein.senate.gov

Rosemary Gardens Couple Locate Airport Noise Source!

Much to the neighborhood's dismay, it is this onboard APU that causes the obnoxious and high pitched whine that disturbs San Jose residents for long periods of time--often hours!

An alternative to an APU is a ground power unit (GPU) that can be moved to different areas of the airport by truck. On three separate occasions the Townsends contacted the airport. The Manager on Duty was very cooperative and promptly arranged for a GPU to be brought to the Federal Inspection Area. This provided relief from the noise, although temporary.

The Townsends consulted Councilmember David Pandori about the problem, who in turn contacted Ralph Tonseth, SJIA Director of Aviation. The results was that the Airport agred to maintain a GPU at the Federal Inspection area until a more permanent solution can be arranged.

Individuals can make a difference. Thank you, Ron and Vicki, for your diligence and tenacity in helping to improve our quality of life.

Volunteers Needed

If you have a flexible schedule and 1-2 hours a month for CAAP, we would welcome hearing from you!

CAAP's Steering Committee: