May 19, 1997
Mayor Susan Hammer
San Jose City Hall
801 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Re: Airport Master Plan Update Position Paper
Dear Mayor Hammer:
Citizens Against Airport Pollution recommends that the City Council select a
Master Plan alternative which promotes an improved quality of life in San Jose
and minimizes the negative environmental impacts of air pollution, noise
pollution and surface traffic congestion.
Background:
The 1980 San Jose Airport Master Plan states:
"Aircraft noise, generated principally from air carrier aircraft operations,
has been a significant problem at San Jose Municipal Airport for many years.
The airport's proximity residential areas North and South of the airport ...
results in a major incompatibility between aircraft operations and adjacent
land uses."
and
"While San Jose Municipal Airport is sure to play a major role in serving the
area's economic and recreational activities, the Airport's operation should
not be allowed to impact the community so as to become a major burden to the
individual neighborhoods of San Jose, Santa Clara, and other communities. The
Airport should take action to mitigate any negative environmental impacts in
the community resulting from the development of future Airport facilities.
Efforts to reduce existing negative impacts should continue and be
accelerated."
At the time these policy statements were made, commercial air carrier
operations at SJC totaled 46,743 annually. In the last fifteen years,
operations at SJC have increased dramatically. Air carrier operations in 1996
totaled 125,990. This increase in operations has had a significant
detrimental affect on the quality of life in San Jose. Air pollution, noise
pollution and surface traffic congestion have all steadily worsened due to
operational increases at SJC.
The Final Draft EIR
The Final Draft EIR reports that increases in noise pollution, air pollution
and surface traffic congestion are significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts of future airport development. Airports are significant sources of
ground level VOC and Nox emissions. Locally, an airport's operations can
create as much, if not more, ground level VOC's and Nox, as many of its
largest industrial neighbors. As an example, a DC-10 two minute take- off is
the equivalent, for Nox emissions, as the use of 21,530 cars for the same
period. In fact, SJC is a significant source of air pollution in the greater
Santa Clara County and a huge source of ground level ozone (smog) in San Jose.
While the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 effectively target motor vehicles
and industrial sources for emission reduction, it left air pollution from
airports unregulated.
The further degradation of air quality in San Jose represents a major quality
of life dilemma. The enclosed publication from the National Resources Defense
Council provides valuable information about ground level air pollution from
airports (Chapter Two). The brown haze over the San Jose area too often
obscures the east foothills from vision. Thousands of people with respiratory
problem are adversely affected. High tech businesses complain of the growing
difficulty in attracting the skilled workers necessary to their success. These
skilled workers demand a quality of life which we need to protect here in San
Jose. We need to select an airport development alternative that recognizes the
critical importance of clean air to San Jose. In addition to the degradation
of local air quality, noise pollution continues to be a major burden to
neighborhoods in the general vicinity of the airport. The Project Case
Alternative proposes to increase air carrier, commuter and all cargo
operations by over 100% from 1993 levels. CAAP believes that this proposal
fails to strike an appropriate balance between noise impacts and future
airport development. The final draft EIR concludes that the CNEL contours (in
the year 2010) will improve slightly by virtue of various assumptions.
However, these assumptions, involving fleet mix and elimination of Stage Two
aircraft, are suspect. Moreover, even if these assumptions are correct, noise
impacts will worsen. The increased frequency of noise events, as proposed in
the Project Case, threatens to create a blanket of unending noise. A Sensible
Solution Economic growth in Silicon valley is generated by the high tech
industry that has chosen to locate here. Increasingly, high tech companies
complain of the difficulty in attracting the high tech workers necessary to
their continued success. Commuter gridlock, worsening air quality, and
increasing noise pollution all combine to make San Jose a less attractive
place to live and raise a family. The Planning Commission of the City of San
Jose has rejected the maximum "Project Case" proposed by the airport
department. Thousands of citizens in San Jose and Santa Clara argue that SJC
is badly located in the center of our urban environment and should not be
allowed to grow beyond the staggering growth of the last decade.
What's needed is an environmentally progressive Airport Master Plan that
balances the convenience of SJC with the quality of life. San Jose should not
become the environmental dumping ground for all of the South Bay. Recognition
should be given to the fact that air carrier operations at SJC have tripled
since 1980. In light of this phenomenal growth, future development needs to be
sensibly controlled.
Because of limitations imposed by recent Federal legislation, the city of San
Jose should proceed with caution. No new construction of runways, air cargo
facilities, or terminals should be scheduled until Stage Two commercial
aircraft no longer operate at SJC. Additionally, the Airport Noise Control
Program should be strictly enforced, for a specified review period, to
demonstrate its effectiveness and enforceability. Finally, all reasonable
steps should be undertaken to reduce noise and air pollution at their source.
Sincerely yours,
Robert H. Harmssen
Legal Advisor