LATHAM & WATKINS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
701 "B" STREET, SUITE 2100
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-8197
TELEPHONE (619) 236-1234
FAX (619) 696-7419
January 10, 1996
City of San Jose
Attn: Julie Caporgno
City Hall Annex Room 400
801 N. First Street
San Jose, California 95110-1795
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (DEIS/DEIR) For The San Jose International Airport
Master Plan Update
Dear Ms. Caporgno:
We submit this letter on behalf of the City of Sunnyvale (City) to comment
on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the San Jose International Airport
Master Plan Update's DEIS/DEIR. The City of Sunnyvale is extremely concerned
about the NOP's proposal to consider in the DEIS/DEIR civilian use of Moffett
Field as an alternative to or as mitigation for the San Jose International
Airport's proposed expansion. Due to that concern, the City has asked us
to present its comments regarding the DEIS/DEIR, to supplement the concerns
raised in former Mayor Waldman's August 1995 comment letter in response
to the NOP.
As a prefatory comment, we wish to advise the City of San Jose and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) that our client is in the process of evaluating
its legal rights and remedies with regard to any adverse impacts which may
result from the processing and/or approval of any expansion of San Jose's
operations onto Moffett Field.
The Moffett Field property is not available for expansion of San Jose's
civilian operations, and the DEIS/DEIR should not presume that it is. Indeed,
given San Jose's recent adoption of a resolution favoring the use and retention
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Ames Research
Center and NASA's continued operation of Moffett Field, analysis of civilian
use of the airfield in San Jose's DEIS/DEIR is disingenuous at best.
A. Moffett Field Is Too Remote To Be Analyzed As A Viable
Alternative Or Mitigation Measure For San Jose International
Airport's Proposed Expansion
It is inappropriate to consider in any DEIS/DEIR an alternative which is
remote either in distance or in possibility of implementation-and Moffett
Field is "remote" in both senses, as the NOP itself acknowledged.
Moffett Field is miles away from the San Jose International Airport; moreover,
it is increasingly unlikely that NASA would relocate aircraft from NASA/Ames
Research Center to Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) at Edwards Air Force
Base, as had at one time been considered. Moffett Field is an important
part of the federal transportation infrastructure as a NASA facility, and
NASA's Ames Research Center is a crucial component of the varied federal
activities and private contractors in the Sunnyvale community. The NASA
aircraft currently stationed at NASA/Ames are used to research ozone depletion,
study crop diseases, fight major fires, and for other research activities,
as well as to serve as an educational link to thousands of students who
monitor NASA in-flight experiments.
Not only is NASA's Ames Research Center an important federal operation which
neither the national nor the state or local governments could afford to
lose, but transferring NASA's Moffett Field operations to another location
also would have serious financial implications to NASA as well as to the
Sunnyvale and surrounding communities. A recent draft report from the NASA
Office of Inspector General (OIG) severely criticized NASA's relocation
plan, determining that instead of the claimed savings of $23.3 million annually,
such a move instead would actually cost the federal government $1.5 million
each year. In addition, start-up costs for such a move likely would run
$32.2 million, rather than the $22.9 million earlier claimed. In fact, the
Inspector General found that such a consolidation plan would hurt research
programs, make it harder to closely connect flight research to the Aeronautics
program and researchers, and be bad for morale. For example, the OIG report
found that consolidation could seriously compromise the efficiency and cost
effectiveness of the Airborne Astronomy Program. If the program were moved
from Ames, it would no longer be close to plentiful high-tech, commercial
resources, a world-class infrared astronomy center, or day-to-day science
input for operation and development activities.
Hence, because moving NASA's research aircraft to DFRC would cost taxpayers
more money, and would severely undercut the vital research, educational
and other Federal programs that these aircraft support, it is highly unlikely
such a move ever would take place.
B. Wasting Government Resources In Sheer Speculation Is
Contrary To The Interest Of Both The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA! And The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
As the NOP recognizes, the fact that Moffett Field is federally owned and
operated, and that any transfer of ownership is unlikely, makes any consideration
of the airfield's use as a civilian airport "too remote, speculative
and uncertain to include as an alternative" to the San Jose International
Airport proposed expansion. (See State CEQA Guideline 15126(d)(5) (speculative
alternatives need not be considered in EIR); Al Larson Boat Shop v. Board
of Harbor Commissioners, 18 Cal. App. 4th 729, 745, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618,
627 (1993) (rejecting contention use of Naval Station should be considered
in FEIR where possibility it would be closed by the government was remote
and speculative). Courts have continually made clear that there is no point
in including a discussion of the environmental impact of alternatives which
are remote from reality, including alternatives which could be implemented
only "after significant changes in governmental policy or legislation,"
such is the case here. (See, e.g, Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Comm. v. Board
of Trustees, 89 Cal. App. 3d 274, 287, 152 Cal. Rptr. 585, 593 (1979); Lake
County Energy Council v. County of Lake, 70 Cal. App. 3d 851, 854-55, 139
Cal. Rptr. 176, 178 (1977) ("where future development is unspecified
and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in
sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences"); Del Mar
Terrace Conservancy v. City Council, 10 Cal. App. 4th 712, 730, 12 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 785, 796 (1992) (where "future development is unspecified
and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in
sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences").
It would serve no purpose for the San Jose DEIS/DEIR to engage in sheer
speculation as to future environmental consequences of Moffett Field as
either an alternative or a mitigation measure for expansion of the San Jose
International Airport; evaluation of future environmental effects associated
with any civilian operation of Moffett Field must await the future decisions
that could make such operation a possibility.(See Topanga Beach Renters
Ass'n v. Dept. of General Services, 58 Cal.App. 3d 188, 196, 129 Cal. Rptr.
739, 743 (1976) (evaluation of environmental effects of project if Topanga
Beach were returned to its natural state too speculative and remote to be
properly analyzed in EIR.) Indeed, spending limited government resources
on speculative studies "is contrary to sound policy and contrary to
the legislative intent in enacting CEQA ....(4. Heniner v. Bd. of Supervisors
of Santa Clara, 186 Cal. Ap. 3d 601, 611, 231 Cal. Rptr. 11, 17 (1986).)
C. Any Evaluation Of Moffett Field Must Fully Discuss All
Potential Impacts Associated With Such An Alternative
As discussed above, it is neither practical nor feasible to analyze the
effects of possible future civil aviation use of Moffett Field in this DEIS/DEIR.
If the DEIS/DEIR nonetheless persists in considering Moffett Field despite
the problems inherent in such an approach, however, then it must provide
a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of such an alternative,
in as extensive detail as the DEIS/DEIR analyzes the environmental impacts
of the Project Case and Project Case Alternatives A and B. All potential
impacts of civilian use of Moffett Field must be analyzed, including noise,
traffic, air quality and more. A superficial discussion of these impacts
will not suffice. It is absolutely essential under NEPA that the decision
maker be provided with a detailed, careful analysis of the relative environmental
impacts of proposed alternatives, and CEQA requires that agency conclusions
in an EIR be supported by rigorous analysis and substantial evidence. (5.
See, e.., Kins County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692
(1990).)
1. The DEIS/DEIR Must Evaluate Biological. Land Use
And Water Quality Impacts
For example, the DEIS/DEIR should provide a comprehensive biotic impact
analysis incorporating an inventory of existing species which inhabit Moffett
Field and its environs. The DEIS/DEIR's impact analysis also should include
an evaluation of land use and planning, particularly in regard to adverse
noise in areas around Moffett Field, and any incompatibility with Sunnyvale's
community development plans. Water quality impacts also should be explored,
including analysis of any change in absorption rates, drainage patterns
or the rate and amount of surface runoff resulting from use of Moffett Field
as an alternative to or as mitigation for expansion of the San Jose International
Airport.
2. All Potential Safety Risks Must Be Thoroughly
Addressed In The DEIS/DEIR
Of particular interest to the citizens of the City of Sunnyvale are any
hazards associated with the proposed civilian use of Moffett Field, including
risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances, and the
creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard from the increased
use and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. For example,
the risk of aircraft accidents must be discussed in the DEIS/DEIR, as well
as the presence, or suspected presence, of any hazardous substances contamination
at the site.
Moreover, the California Air National Guard operates a munitions storage
facility at Moffett Field which would have to be relocated if Moffett Field
were to be used for the civilian airfield your NOP appears to envision.
As a result, the San Jose DEIS/DEIR should thoroughly evaluate the potential
impacts of such relocation, including the possibility that after relocation
explosive waste products or other related wastes may remain on the site
and would require remediation.
In addition, any DEIS/DEIR that considers civilian use of Moffett Field
would need to evaluate the safety ramifications potentially caused by the
fact that numerous permitted hazardous waste facilities are located adjacent
to Moffett Field and within the likely flight path for civilian aircraft.
An aircraft crash at a hazardous waste facility has significant public safety
ramifications, all of which should be addressed in the San Jose DEIS/DEIR.
3. Any Pollution Prevention Measures Should Be
Discussed And Fully Evaluated
The DEIS/DEIR also should evaluate incorporation of pollution prevention
measures into the proposed project, including energy and water conservation,
solid waste recycling and hazardous waste minimization. The DEIS/DEIR should
discuss whether pollution prevention measures can be integrated into the
project or become part of future airport operations. Appropriate commitments
concerning pollution prevention should be included in the Record of Decision.
4. Civilian Use Of Moffett Field Would Have Significant
Noise Impacts That Must Be Analyzed In Any
DEIS/DEIR
Perhaps most importantly, the noise impacts of the proposed civilian use
of Moffett Field as an alternative or as mitigation for any San Jose International
Airport expansion must be subjected to strenuous analysis in the DEIS/DEIR.
Civilian aircraft departures from Moffett Field would require aircraft to
directly overfly a high density residential area as well as other noise
sensitive areas; civil use would have a greater impact on residential neighborhoods
than do NASA and other federal aircraft. The City of Sunnyvale would expect
the DEIS/DEIR to thoroughly assess changes in aircraft noise levels. Of
course, any noise analysis also should include noise related to traffic
directly or indirectly resulting from use of Moffett Field to supplement
San Jose's operations, as well as evaluation of noise resulting from use
of Auxiliary Power Units (APU), Ground Power Units (GPU), and traffic. The
need for soundproofing of schools and residences as a result of civilian
use of Moffett Field also must be discussed.
Such analysis would include analysis of the daytime, evening and nighttime
takeoffs of all aircraft types expected to use Moffett Field, with noise
contours developed for 60, 65 and 75 CNEL values, and an evaluation of the
number of residents and housing units that would potentially be impacted
by 60 CNEL and above. Development of civilian use of Moffett Field noise
contours should be based on detailed knowledge of aircraft operations, including
the number of operations per day, by aircraft type and time of day; the
percent usage of each arrival and departure track and of each pattern type;
the aircraft power settings, speeds, and altitudes for arrivals, departures,
and patterns; and number, duration, and location of high-power run-ups.
As you know, California has determined that residential development should
not be allowed within the 65 CNEL, and 60 CNEL leads to noise complaints
from individuals within the 60 CNEL contour. The noise analysis should include
reference to the Noise Compatibility Guidelines, the County of Santa Clara
Noise Level Standards, and the City of Sunnyvale Noise Level Standards.
5. The DEIS/DEIR's Air Quality Analysis Must Consider
Hazardous As Well As Criteria Air Pollutants
The DEIS/DEIR also must identify and evaluate any federal, state or local
air quality requirements that apply to the proposed action, fully discussing
whether an increase in emissions of criteria air pollutants pursuant to
the proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the federal
Clean Air Act (CAA), and whether project mitigation is sufficient to reduce
air impacts to levels required by the CAA. The analysis must identify or
fully disclose all impacts associated with the proposed action and provide
mitigation measures for sources of emissions exceeding established significance
threshold levels. In addition to the analysis required under CEQA and NEPA,
the CAA requires federal actions to demonstrate conformity with the State
Implementation Plan ("SIP"). Air quality emissions associated
with use of Moffett Field for civilian aircraft would include, inter alia,
emissions resulting from construction activity, aircraft activity, ground
support equipment, vehicles, stationary sources, equipment and indirect
emissions.
The NOP makes no mention of any discussion of hazardous air pollutants in
the air quality impacts analysis, yet hazardous air pollutants are associated
with airport operations. The DEIS/DEIR should discuss the hazardous air
pollutants associated with the proposed project, including projected emissions
levels. As applicable, appropriate means to reduce hazardous air pollutants
also should be analyzed. Typical pollutants associated with airport operations
include benzene, formaldehyde, toluene and xylene. Emissions from aircraft
include ethylene, styrene, phenol, napthalene, and other pollutants identified
as hazardous under the 1990 CAA Amendments. Additionally, asbestos is listed
as a hazardous air pollutant under the CAA; if any asbestos-containing materials
would be disturbed or removed during the construction phase, that must be
addressed in the DEIS/DEIR as well.
The DEIS/DEIR also should discuss the nature and total emissions of hazardous
air pollutants at the airport. In addition, the DEIS/DEIR should explore
the possibility of reducing or eliminating the use of materials which produce
hazardous air emissions, and appropriate commitments to reduce hazardous
air emissions should be included in the Record of Decision.
Mitigation measures for reduction of air quality impacts should include
implementation of alternative fuel use and electrification of ground service
vehicles, regulation of emissions from aircraft and development of indirect
source strategy. The DEIS/DEIR should include a firm commitment that the
FAA will work with the local air pollution control district to identify
the full spectrum of relevant, reasonable air quality mitigation measures
and that, to the extent allowed by federal law and FAA regulations, the
implementation of these air quality measures be included as project-related
FAA grants, loans, permits, licenses or other approvals, to ensure that
increased emissions are fully offset.
6. Traffic Congestion Caused By Civilian Use of Moffett
Field Also Must Be Analyzed
Any DEIS/DEIR which considers civilian use of Moffett Field also must analyze
the traffic impacts of such expansion, as required by California's Congestion
Management Program, Government Code Sections 65088 et seq. and Government
Code Section 66531(c), including recommending ways to mitigate the impacts
of congestion caused by such expanded use of Moffett Field.
7. Many Of Moffett Field's Buildings And Structures Are
Historic Properties. Or Are Potentially Eligible For
Such Status. Hence Impacts To These Historic
Resources Must Be Evaluated In The DEIS/DEIR
In addition, a thorough analysis of historic buildings and structures that
potentially could be impacted by civilian use of Moffett Field also is required.
Generally, eligibility of historic properties for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) requires that the resource be at
least fifty years old or possess unusual significance for a particular reason.
Criteria for determining whether significant project impacts would occur
to historic, archaeological, architectural or cultural resources are provided
in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations governing
the review process pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take into account the effects
of their undertaking on properties included in or eligible for the National
Register. The Regulations for Protection of Historic Properties, 36 C.F.R.
Part 800, define an action as having an adverse effect on a historic property
when "the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, or association" are diminished. Adverse effects
include the "introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements
that are out of character with the property or alter its setting."
This is a federal standard which should be used in the DEIS/DEIR as a basis
for determining significance.
The property on which Moffett Field is located was ceded by the State to
the federal government for use as a military base or for "other needful
buildings" in 1931 - 64 years ago. As a result, many objects, places,
sites, structures and values associated with the World War II period, and
the years leading up to World War II, present at Moffett Field now have
reached the 50-year threshold. In addition, there are other buildings on
Moffett Field which may be connected with significant national events or
meet other specific criteria, hence may be eligible for nomination to the
NRHP. Indeed, 28 structures at Moffett Field were recently nominated for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, along with several
potentially sensitive archaeological sites. The NASA Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel
at Ames Research Center; Hanger 1, which was built to serve as home base
for the Navy dirigible, Macon; and Shenandoah Plaza, which contains several
buildings with Mission Revival Style architecture built in the mid-1930's,
all have been formally designated as an historic structure and are listed
on the National Register. Any attempt to alter or develop these federally
protected buildings and/or sites would require consultation with and approval
by State and Federal regulatory agencies, all of which would need to be
discussed and evaluated in the DEIS/DEIR.
As the fifty-year mark continues to advance, new themes in United States
history, including the Cold War and its associated conflicts in Korea and
Vietnam, will come into historical focus and will play a significant role
in the evaluation process. Evaluation of cultural resources will have to
include the previous historic developments as well as continually emerging
new topics. The DEIS/DEIR should use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers document
on the history and architecture of World War II temporary military buildings
in the preparation of the DEIS/DEIR, if any analysis of Moffett Field is
to be included as an alternative or as a mitigation measure. All buildings
and structures constructed at Moffett Field prior to 1946 should be evaluated
for NRHP eligibility.
In addition to the NRHP, the DEIS/DEIR also must consider the California
Historic Landmarks listings as well as the Santa Clara County or Sunnyvale
registers of locally important sites. A records search and field survey
also are required to analyze any prehistoric or historic sites within the
Moffett Field area.
8. Growth-Inducing, Socio And Induced Socioeconomic
Impacts Require Analysis In The DEIS/DEIR
Growth-inducing impacts of the proposed use of Moffett Field also is a requisite
discussion in the DEIS/DEIR. CEQA requires a DEIS/DEIR to discuss the ways
in which a project may encourage growth in the surrounding area. State CEQA
Guidelines 15126(g). Because use of Moffett Field as a civilian airport
may encourage development, the project will encourage growth in not only
Sunnyvale but surrounding cities as well. The DEIS/DEIR must acknowledge
the role of the Moffett Field alternative in encouraging such development,
and must address the potential growth inducing impacts of this project as
well as its associated environmental effects on air quality, traffic, population
and housing, and the like. Thus, if Moffett Field is considered in the DEIS/DEIR
despite the problems associated with that approach, the DEIS/DEIR must contain
a separate, detailed discussion of the growth inducing impacts of such an
alternative.
Similarly, social and induced socioeconomic impacts must be evaluated in
the DEIS/DEIR. Social impacts are associated with the relocation of homes
or businesses or other community disruption which may be caused by the proposal,
including alteration of surface transportation pattern; division or disruption
of established communities; disruption of orderly, planned development;
and the creation of an appreciable change in employment. Induced socioeconomic
impacts are the potential for induced or secondary impacts on the surrounding
communities, including shifts in population movement and growth pattern,
public service demands, and changes in business and economic activity to
the extent influenced by the airport development.
The economic dislocation impacts caused by converting Moffett Field to civilian
use are many. The facilities within and around Moffett Field represent a
center of gravity that stabilizes and strengthens the local economy. Moffett
Airfield is as important to the region as it is critical to each individual
participant whose success requires interaction with research and development
activities at Moffett. If these links are jeopardized or broken, individual
activity in research, education and industry would also be seriously jeopardized.
For example, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space (LMMS) is directly adjacent
to Moffett Field. Two factors were key in the decision to locate LMMS in
Sunnyvale: (1) proximity to institutions of higher education and (2) proximity
and access to Moffett Field's tightly controlled airfield. LMMS owns roughly
600 acres of land adjacent to Moffett Field, valued at approximately $500
million. The company's investments include state of the art, one of a kind
facilities, including the largest painting facilities in the western United
States, the second largest thermal altitude chamber in the free world, the
largest clean room in the United States, one of industries' largest acoustic
chambers, and a state of the art microwave technology center.
LMMS requires the use of large transport in the immediate vicinity of their
facility. Airlifts to and from Moffett Field support LMMS's major lines
of business. Cargo frequently requires the capacities of a C-5 aircraft
and shipments involve varying levels of security precautions. Design criteria
for current and future projects have been established based on access to
Moffett Field for transportation. Shipping containers and transportation
have been designed and planned specifically for those airlift support. The
size and weight of their products generally preclude transport over public
road and highways. The aircraft used to move this cargo cannot land at most
public airports. Moffett Field provides important access to rail, water
and air transport for oversize, overweight components and classified products.
Similarly, TRW Avionics & Surveillance Group ("TRW") also
located in Sunnyvale, designs, develops and manufactures strategic and tactical
reconnaissance and communications systems primarily for the U.S. Government.
TRW established a strong working relationship with Moffett Field in 1971
and is still dependent on the airfield for the flight testing and shipping
of important national defense programs such as the Guardrail. Should access
to the airfield become unavailable, some TRW operations critical to the
national defense may be negatively impacted. These impacts also should be
evaluated in any DEIS/DEIR considering civilian use of Moffett Field.
Although economic effects are not in and of themselves considered significant
effects on the environment within the context of CEQA, to the extent that
they result in physical changes, they should be considered. State CEQA Guideline
15131. As all levels of government are currently suffering from the recession,
allocation of funds to one project almost certainly will deny funding for
other projects. The DEIS/DEIR should discuss known and/or likely sources
of funding for the project, including conversion of Moffett Field to a civilian
airbase and the corresponding effect on the surrounding communities. It
also must identify program areas which will and/or might be eliminated or
deferred as a result of expenditures on the Moffett Field alternative.
9. Mitigation Must Be Identified For Each Impact. And
Any Impacts Caused By The Mitigation Measure Also
Must Be Addressed In The DEIS/DEIR
The DEIS/DEIR also should identify the full spectrum of appropriate mitigation
for each identified impact, including a discussion of which agencies would
be responsible for implementing the various mitigation measures, and the
impacts caused by any mitigation measure should be analyzed. Moreover, relevant
mitigation measures should be included as conditions in project-related
FAA grants, loans, permits, licenses or other approvals.
As the above discussion makes clear, civilian use of Moffett Field is not
appropriate for consideration in the San Jose International Airport's DEIS/DEIR,
and the City of Sunnyvale is adamantly opposed to its inclusion therein.
However, if despite the inherent problems with such inclusion, the DEIS/DEIR
nonetheless attempts to evaluate civilian use of Moffett Field as an alternative
or mitigation measure, such evaluation must be comprehensive, including
thorough analysis of all resulting environmental impacts.
D. All Airports In The Area Should Be Considered As
Alternatives If Moffett Field Is Included In the
DEIS/DEIR
Moreover, if you insist on considering Moffett Field - a federal enclave
that houses vital operations for the United States government and which
is unlikely to change hands - in the DEIS/DEIR, then the environmental document
also should consider all other airfields in the area as alternatives or
mitigation measures. For example, Reid-Hillview Airport should be analyzed
just as thoroughly as Moffett Field, along with all other regional airports
E. Proper Review Of The DEIS/DEIR By The City of
Sunnyvale Requires That It Be Allowed To Review the
Screencheck DEIS/DEIR As Well As That The Public
Review Period Be 90, Rather than 45, Days
To ensure that the above is done, the City of Sunnyvale requests that you
make available to us the screencheck DEIS/DEIR together with the data supporting
its preparation, updates, and additional information as it becomes available.
Although we understand that the contents of the screencheck DEIS/DEIR are
by definition preliminary and subject to revisions prior to release for
public comment, our early access to the screencheck DEIS/DEIR, and in particular
to the technical studies upon which its conclusions will be founded, will
permit the City's analysis of and comments to the DEIS/DEIR to be more thoughtful
and constructive than those that may be produced under the time pressure
of the limited public comment period. Moreover, the City of Sunnyvale may
be able to informally correct any obvious factual mistakes, particularly
concerning the impacts on the City of Sunnyvale, prior to the release of
the draft EIR for public comment. CEQA Guideline 15084(c) expressly provides
that interested parties should be permitted an opportunity to submit "information
and comments to the lead agency to assist in the preparation of the draft
EIR." For the City of Sunnyvale's pre-circulation input to be meaningful
and helpful to you in the formulation of an accurate DEIS/DEIR, we need
an early opportunity to review your screencheck DEIS/DEIR.
Moreover, we request that you circulate the DEIS/DEIR for a 90- day public
comment period. As you know, CEQA provides for a public comment period of
between 45 and 90 days. CEQA Guideline 15087(c). Because of the project's
tremendous impact on the City and long-term regional significance, Sunnyvale
and the public should be permitted the full 90-day period allowed by law
to comment on the DEIS/DEIR. As with the pre- circulation review, this time
will permit the Sunnyvale City staff to analyze the impacts of the project
and assist in formulating ways to mitigate the unavoidable impacts such
a large project necessarily entails.
It is our hope that upon reflection, you will determine that the speculativeness
of any attempt to consider Moffett Field as an alternative or mitigation
for expansion of the San Jose International Airport makes it impossible
to include such analysis in the DEIS/DEIR. If not, we trust that at a minimum
the DEIS/DEIR will evaluate not only such speculative use of Moffett Field,
but also other area airports as well, and will do so in a way which clearly
informs the public of all potential environmental impacts associated with
such a move. In the meantime, the City of Sunnyvale will continue to evaluate
the legal rights and remedies which may result from any adverse impacts
directly or indirectly caused by processing or approval of an expansion
of the San Jose International Airport's operations on the City of Sunnyvale
or its residents.
Very truly yours,
Donna J. Williams
of LATHAM & WATKINS
cc: Chris Fischer, Director - Roads and Airports
Michael Honda, Chair, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Robin N. Parker, Mayor, Sunnyvale
Thomas S. Lewcock, City Manager, Sunnyvale
Karen L. Davis, Assistant to City Manager, Sunnyvale