The Loma Prietan
March/April 2001
San Mateo County Has Say on Runways
by Richard Zimmerman
When counties were first formed in California, San Mateo County did not exist. San Francisco County consisted of all land between the Golden Gate and Santa Clara County. The state changed that in 1856 when it created San Mateo County as it is now according to Gray Brechin in Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin.
Unfortunately, San Francisco continues to treat San Mateo County as a fiefdom. Several residents of San Mateo County, speaking at a public hearing on aircraft noise held by State Senator Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) in January, voiced their frustration with their inability to have a say in San Francisco International Airport’s planned runway expansion that will impact residents of San Mateo County with noise, traffic and a lessened quality of life.
Citizens of San Mateo County, take heart; you can have a say in your destiny. State law provides that prior to acquisition of land by San Francisco for purpose of expanding or enlarging the airport, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors must “upon notice, conduct a public hearing on such plan, and shall thereafter approve or disapprove the plan.”
Clearly San Francisco will try to finesse any such approval. San Mateo County residents must insist on full and open hearings. Such hearings would be best held after all environmental documents are available to the public so as to provide the most complete information.
Currently, preliminary results on work being conducted by the Airport is not available for public scrutiny because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), co-partner to the City and County of San Francisco in the runway expansion, considers the documents “federally exempt and not releasable to the public.” The FAA says the federal exemption overrides San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance.
Therefore, very little information may be available to the public. Residents of San Mateo should contact the Board of Supervisors and insist on a series of well-publicized hearings after the environmental documents are available.
Airport ignoring alternatives
The environmental community’s position that SFIA was giving alternatives to building runways short shrift received strong agreement from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) recently. BCDC, concerned about the lack of alternatives in airport studies, managed to locate an aviation consultant who had not been put on retainer by the SFO Airport. Commission staff indicated that the list of available consultants was extremely short—essentially one.
Nevertheless, that firm, G&C Aviation Consulting, cast extreme doubt on the Airport’s attempts to peddle its study of alternatives as complete. In a phrase that could have been taken from our Chapter’s scoping letter in September, 1999, G&C said, “The report [SFIA’s] analyzes the various actions as separate, independent, activities. The compartmentalization allows the Airport/FAA to dismiss each ‘... as not meeting the purpose and need of the project’.”
As an example of such machinations, SFIA rejects moving cargo out of the airport because “the impact of air cargo operations on delay at SFO is minimal.” G&C says that cargo constitutes about two percent of the total traffic at SFO. “Considering operations at SFO are among the most delayed in the U.S., ...shifting of cargo operations would seem viable,” says G&C.
But SFIA rejects shifting cargo because it would not “improve operational efficiency of the SFO airfield for existing large aircraft and projected NLA (New Large Aircraft).”
SFIA continues to selectively use whichever of its purpose or need statements it wants to reject specific alternatives to building runways. G&C Aviation notes, “As the project is envisioned, the only acceptable proposal [to SFIA] is one that provides two arrival runways spaced at least 4,300 feet apart. All of the possible alternatives, or combination of alternatives, that do not require a change in the airport’s current configuration are dismissed as not meeting the project’s needs.”
G&C also says the “most grievous omission [of SFIA documents] is the complete dismissal and lack of consideration of multiple actions which, when taken together, could provide significant potential for delay reduction and offer the possibility of a true Bay Area airport utilization plan.”
The consultants go on to say that the Washington D.C. area could serve as a model for the Bay Area. “The failure to recognize this option as viable brings into dispute the validity of the entire report,” stated G&C.
Davis appoints new
BCDC commissioners
Barbara Kaufman, Roderick McLeod, William Nack, and Audrey R. Oliver were named members of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission by Governor Gray Davis. Five of the 27 members serve at the pleasure of the Governor. This marks Davis’ first appointments to BCDC.
Kaufman, 67, of San Francisco, who will serve as Chair, is a former member and President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors until forced out by term limits in 2000.
McLeod is an attorney, Nack is executive officer for the Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County, and Oliver is a businesswoman from the East Bay.
Kaufman had introduced legislation before she left the San Francisco Board—where she was a strong backer of Mayor Wille Brown—that would have severely limited the ability of the people to protest Environmental Impact Reports in front of the Board. One of the first actions of the new progressive Board upon taking office was to take steps to reverse that action. Aaron Peskin, District Three Supervisor, amended Kaufman’s action to allow all EIRs to be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The proposed rule is currently in committee.
McLeod is a partner of the law firm Brobeck, Phleger and Harrison. That firm counts United Airlines and Canadian Airlines as clients. In addition, the firm represented the Air Transport Association of America, a group of 25 airlines, in the past.
It does not appear that Governor Davis has appointed strong environmentalists to be in charge of safeguarding the Bay. Since these appointments are subject to Senate confirmation, you should write to your state senator and ask that the appointees be quizzed on their environmental experience and specific commitments to protecting San Francisco Bay. And if their answers are not satisfactory, the appointees should be rejected.
Richard Zimmerman is Chair of the
Loma Prieta Chapter’s SFIA/Bay Protection task force. The task force meets the third Tuesday of each month. For more information, e-mail windrider@protectourbay.com or call the Chapter office at 650/390-8411.