Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-22 City Council (13)TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 9 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: April 22, 1996 CMR:239:96 Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Project Draft EIR - City of Palo Alto Response REQUEST The County of Santa Clara has prepared a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the proposed closure of Reid-Hillview Airport. Because the airport is one of three general aviation airports, including the Palo Alto Airport, which are operated by the County, its closure could affect Palo Alto and therefore the City requested the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Council 1) endorse Alternative C, which would keep Reid-Hillview Airport open and remove all incompatible land uses within FAA safety zones, and 2) direct the Mayor to send the attached letter to the County of Santa Clara expressing the Council’s position. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The closure of Reid-Hillview Airport has the potential to significantly impact other general aviation facilities in the area, particularly Palo Alto Airport. A preferable alternative has been identified which would minimize the incompatible land uses without the closure of the airport. Retaining Reid-Hillview Airport has several advantages: general aviation facilities would continue to be available at several locations; the County would maintain a stronger basis for the joint operation of the County general aviation airports; the pressure to open Moffett Federal Airfield to general aviation would be lessened; and there would not be a demand to expand the capacity of Palo Alto Airport. EXECUTIVE S~MARY The DEIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed closure of the Reid-Hillview Airport and discusses three possible replacement land use scenarios. The comments in this staff report do not address any future replacement land uses, but deal only with the impacts of the airport closure. The DEIR also evaluates four alternatives to the project. These CMR:239:96 Page 1 of 7 alternatives would, to varying degrees, partially or fully achieve the objective of the project (which is defined as removing an incompatible land use from the area) and do so without closing the airport. The DEIR is generally responsive to the issues which the City identified in the letter to the County commenting on the Notice of Preparation (see Attachment A). However, it does not directly address the fiscal implications for the operation of Palo Alto Airport ifReid-Hillview Airport were to close. This issue is again raised by the City in the draft letter from the Mayor (see AttachmentD). Reid-Hillview Airport, located on the east side of San Jose, is the largest of three general aviation airports operated by the County of Santa Clara. Refer to figures 1 and 2 reproduced from the DEIR. "General aviation" means those aviation activities and facilities which are not commercial or military in nature. The closure of Reid-Hillview Airport would mean the relocation of 422 aircraft currently based at the airport and the displacement of 29 businesses located there. The airport has an actual capacity for 900 aircraft, so the opportunity to accommodate additional aircraft would also be lost. Reid-Hillview Airport is a Federal Aviation Administration ~AA) designated reliever airport for San Jose International Airport (SJC). This means that general aviation facilities that cannot be met at SJC, because its principal responsibility is to commercial aviation, are to be accommodated at Reid-Hillview. General aviation aircraft at SJC are being displaced by the growth in commercial air carrier and air cargo activity and, in view of this historic and projected growth, SJC is presently analyzing alternatives for updating its Airport Master Plan. The Santa Clara County General Plan (1994) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Airport System Plan (1994) assumed that the three county general aviation airports could accommodate the demand resulting from general aviation being displaced at SJC. However, the closure of Reid-Hillview Airport without the construction of a replacement airport, in conjunction with the planned downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC, would cause a regional shortage of general aviation facilities and would significantly impact the areawide general aviation system. To assess the air transportation impacts, the DEIR methodology considered the projected general aviation demand and capacity at all sixteen general aviation airports in the study area. Various airport master plans were reviewed and owners of aircraft currently based at Reid- Hillview were surveyed to determine their relocation preferences. The DEIR determined that the cumulative impact of the closure of Reid-Hillview Airport and the implementation of the general aviation downsizing called for in the proposed update for the SJC Master Plan would be the necessary relocation of up to 671 aircraft. CMR:239:96 Page 2 of 7 SAN JOS Rd. Blossom 2.3 miles Base Map Source: CSAA, 1991 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP CMR:239:96 FIGURE 1 Page 3 of 7 I.~ke Cunningham Eastridge Mall = ,= ,= Project .Site Botmdary VICINITY MAP CM£R:239:96 FIGURE 2 Page 4 of 7 The greatest impact is projected for Palo Alto Airport. The DEIR projects that 372 aircraft would seek to relocate to Palo Alto, an increase of 330 (or 56%) over the airport’s capacity. Additional aircraft means an increase in aviation operations, i.e., takeoffs and landings, as well. The DEIR notes that expansion of the Palo Alto Airport to accommodate this demand would be inconsistent with the Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands Master Plan. Expansion would result in potentially significant environmental impacts beyond the scope of this DEIR. It would also be in conflict with the city-county lease agreement for the airport. The DEIR does not consider relocation of aircraft to Moffett Federal Airfield as a feasible mitigation, because the airfield is not open for civilian aviation use. Although the City of San Jose has expressed interest in this option, the County believes it to be speculative and beyond the scope of analysis for the DEIR. The closure of Reid-Hillview Airport is opposed by the FAA and several organizations within Santa Clara County. Furthermore, each of the sites identified as a potential replacement for the airport has its own set of environmental constraints and issues. Of considerable interest, then, is the DEIR’s discussion of altematives to the proposed project (the airport closure) that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project (removing an incompatible land use) without closing the airport. Table S-3 on page xxi of Attachment B to this staff report describes the altematives. The DEIR selects Altemative C as the environmentally superior altemative for the following reasons: 1) it avoids all of the significant impacts of the proposed project and the future redevelopment of the site, 2) it avoids the major displacement of residences, businesses, and public facilities of Altematives A and B, 3) it avoids the increased land use compatibility impacts north of the airport of Altemative D, 4) it has minimal short-term and long-term environmental impact, and 5) by removing facilities from the FAA safety zones at the south end of the airport, it would reduce the likely severity of an accident occurring in the safety zones when compared to existing conditions. See the illustration copied from the DEIR which follows this page. The final decision on whether or not to close Reid-Hillview Airport will be made by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors after certification of the environmental impact report. Following that, it would take several years to complete the closure. FISCAL IMPACT The economic impact of the closure of Reid-Hillview Airport was not directly addressed in the DEIR; such analysis was beyond the scope of the document according to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. However, as was noted in the 10/31/95 letter from the City to the County (see Attachment A), the City believes that the closure of one of the CMR:239:96 Page 5 of 7 I 0 Page 6 of 7 three airports which are managed as a unit by the County could have fiscal repercussions for the remaining two. The airports are operated as an enterprise, distinct from the County general fund. Reid-Hillview and Palo Alto airports typically generate net income annually, whereas the South County Airport has consistently operated at a deficit, Under the terms of the City’s lease agreement with the County, revenue generated at the Palo Alto Airport can only be used at the Palo Alto Airport. In the absence of Reid-Hillview Airport, and the loss of the revenue generated there, it is probable that changes in the County’s airport management strategy will be sought. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The subject of this staff report is an environmental impact report. ATTACHMENTS A.City of Palo Alto letter commenting on Notice of Preparation of EIR, 10/31/95 B.EIR Summary of Reid-Hillview Airport Closure C.List of page references to Palo Alto Airport in the DEIR D.Draft letter from Mayor Wheeler to the County of Santa Clara PREPARED BY: Vicci Rudin, Assistant to the City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROV Assistant Ci~4Vlanager cc: Chairman and members, Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport CMR:239:96 Page 7 of 7 Cityof-;xloA to Office of the Ci~/ Mm u~gcr Attachment A October 31, 1995 CERTIFIED I,,tAIL Julie Render Environmental Analyst County of Santa Clara Environmental Analysis - Building B 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Project Dear Ms. Render: This letter is in response to your request for the views of the City of Palo Alto as to the preparation of an EIR for the Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Project. Thank you for the op, pommity to comment on the scope of the EIR. In the information that was provided it stated "Reid-Hillview is one of three general aviation airports in Santa Clara County which is owned and operated by the Santa Clara Count.-,’ Roads & Airports Department." I wish to clarify that the Palo Alto Airport is actually owned by the City of Palo Alto and leased to the County. The lease is a fi~.’-year lease that will expire on April 5, 2017. It is by virtue of the lease that we respond to your request in two specific areas, Economic and Business Impact. General Plan Compliance The EIR should assess and discuss general plan conflicts for Santa Clara County, San Jose and Palo Alto based on each agency’s adopted General Plan. Economic Issues The Couhty manages three airports: Reid-Hillview, Palo Alto and South County. Previous Airport Enterprise and Special Aviation Funds Statement of Revenues and Expenses documents show the Reid-Hillview and Palo Alto airports typically generate net income annually. These same documents show the South County Airport has consistently operated at a deficit. P.O. P*~x 102N} Palo AIIo, CA 415.329.2N~3 415.3Z4.3(~31 Fax Julie Render October 31, 1995 Page Two Additionally, Section 6.(d) of the Palo Alto lease states that "Count?." will utilize revenues accruing to the County. from the airport operation to reimburse General Fund of County. for expenditures made for airport construction and maintenance at the Palo Alto Airport," while Section 6.(e) states, "County shall utilize all remaining revenues accruing to the County from the airport operation, after repayment per 6 (d) above, for maintenance, operation, or capital improvement of the premises." In other words, revenue generated at the Palo Alto Airport, under the terms of the lease, must be spent at the Palo Alto Airport. The economic questions to be answered are: 1) if Reid-Hillview Airport is closed and the income generated at Palo Alto Airport can only be used at the Palo Alto Airport, how will South County. Airport continue to be subsidized, and 2) what will be the impacts of the closure of Reid-Hillview on the ability of the County to fiscally manage the remaining two airports? Business Impact What number of planes currently based at Reid-Hillview would require relocation to other general aviation airports? Based on ownership of those planes, where are they most apt to want to relocate? The removal of one of the three airports in the County system and the City. of San Jose’s proposal to reduce general aviation at the San Jose International Airport could have serious repercussions for the other two (particularly Palo Alto because of lease restrictions on the number of allowable tie downs.) The Palo Alto Airport lease limits the number of permanent aircraft tie do’ms to 510. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has recently prepared a Regional Airport System Plan and DEIR. That plan assumes an increase in commercial air traffic at San Jose. \Vhat does it say about Reid-Hillview? If Reid-Hillview is not a general aviation reliever for San Jose International, what airport will be? Will it be addressed in this EIR? The lease of the Palo Alto Airport also limits the number of Fixed Base Operators (FBO’s) to the current two. If Reid-Hillview is closed and the City of San Jose downsizes general aviation at the International Airport, where will the Reid-Hillview FBO’s be relocated? 1-he DEIR should address the secondary impacts on aviation which would occur from the closure, particularly in light of the efforts of San Jose to discourage general aviation at that airport. The impacts of the relocation of aircraft currently based at San Jose International wil! be compounded by the closure of Reid-Hillview. What are the impacts to other airports as a result of the increase in additional based planes (e.g., air traffic, noise, surface traffic and congestion)? Julie Render October 31, 1995 Page Three Timin_g If the closure were to occur, what is the likely timing? In the furore we would appreciate any correspondence be mailed to both: Jim Gilliland Assist~t Planning Official Ci~ of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Pa!o Alto. Calif. 94303 Vicci Rudin Assistant to the City Manager City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, Calif. 94303 It is important that the Palo Alto City Council review the draft KIR. In order to properly schedule that review, we must request a 45-day review time. If you should have any further questions, please contact Jim Gilliland at (41f) 32%2679 or fax (415)329-2240. ’ {y Manager Vicci Rudin, Assistant to the City Manager Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Dcbbie Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney Larry Feldman, Director of Aviation Nick Petredis, Chair of the Joint Community Relations Committee for the PA Airport Bill Fellman, Manager, Real Property EIR SUMMARY ATTACHMENT B REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is the closure of Reid-Hillview Airport, a general aviation facility located on a 180-acre site in the easterly portion of the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Reid-Hillview (PMV) is one of three general aviation airports in Santa Clara County which are operated by the Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department. The objective of the proposed project is to remove an incompatible land use. The project does not include the development of any replacement land uses on the airport site - assuming the airport is closed - since no replacement land uses have been decided upon or put forth. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that the airport property will be redeveloped in the future if the airport is closed. Therefore, in keeping with the CEQA requirement that an EIR evaluate "the whole of an action", this EIR discusses the environmental impacts of three possible replacement land use scenarios. This EIR does not purport to be a full environmental document with respect to the possible redevelopment of RHV; any such future redevelopment would have to undergo its own separate, detailed environmental analysis prior to approval of such a project. These three scenarios, which we?e joi.ntly developed by Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose, are summarized as follows: Redevelopment as Public Park Under this scenario, the airport property would be redeveloped as a public park, presumably under the ownership and operation of either Santa Clara County or the City of San Jose. The park scenario assumes "passive uses" such as picnicking, walking, and jogging. It does not include "active use" facilities such as tennis courts, baseball fields, swimming pools, etc. Redevelopment with Residential Uses Under this scenario, the airport property would be redeveloped with residential land uses. The assumed densities described in this EIR would yield approximately 2,280 dwelling units on the airport site. The scenario assumes a mix of residential dwellings, including single-family detached units and multi-family units (e.g., townhouses, condominiums, apartments, etc.). Redevelopment with Industrial/Commercial Uses Under this scenario, the airport property would be redeveloped with industrial and commercial land uses. The assumed densities described in this EIR would yield approximately 2.4 million square feet of industrial/commercial uses. Typical neighborhood commercial and community shopping development would result in l-story buildings with adjacent par’king. Typical light industrial or industrial park development at the assumed density would result in 1 to 2-story buildings on the site. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE vii MARCH 1996 DtLt~"T EIR SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The following discussion, and Table S-l, summarize the primary environmental impacts of the proposed closure of RHV. Where applicable, the discussion differentiates between the direct, short-term environmental impacts of the closure of the airport and the long-term environmental impacts under the three potential redevelopment scenarios for the airport property. The reader is referred to the main body of this EIR for detailed discussions of the environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures. A.LAND USE IMPACTS Closure Impacts Redevelopment Impacts The proposed closure of RHV will result in a beneficial land use impact with regard to the issue of land use compatibility. This statement is based on the fact that, over the years since RHV was opened in 1939, various land use decisions were made which have resulted in the construction of uses near the airport which are not compatible with an airport, based upon criteria contained in various land use plans. (Beneficial Impact) If Reid-Hillview is closed, the redevelopment of the 180-acre airport property-for park, residential, or commercial/industrial uses (at the intensities stated in Section I of this EIR) would generally be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. (Nonsignificant Impact) ~:i B.AIR TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Closure Impacts Mitigation If RHV is closed, the demand for general aviation facilities would significantly exceed the available capacity at other airports in the area. Further, the magnitude of this significant impact would be substantially greater if San Jose Internationa! Airport (SJC) adopts any of its proposed master plan alternatives (other than "no project" which would retain all of its existing general aviation facilities). Under this cumulative scenario, up to 671 aircraft would need to be relocated to other airports. (Significant Impact Individually and Cumulatively) Mitigation could consist of 1) expansion of existing facilities at other airport(s), or 2) construction of a replacement airport somewhere in Santa Clara County, or 3) use of Moffett Federal Airfield, or 4) retention of all general aviation facilities at SJC. While expansion of existing facilities at other airports (e.g., Palo Alto or South County) is technically feasible, such expansion would result in additional significant environmental impacts. Previous studies regarding the feasibility of constructing a replacement general aviation airport in Santa Clara County have identified four potential sites in the South County area. However, each of the four potential sites has its own set of potentially significant environmental impacts. While Moffett Federal Airfield could accommodate general aviation demand, this mitigation is infeasible because Moffett is not open for civilian aviation use. Finally, retention of all general REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE viii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Redevelopment Impacts Direct/Short-Term Closure Impacts IMPACT CATEGORY B INSl S ISU Land Use Air Transportation ’* Park NS = NonsignificantB = Beneficial Residential Industrial/ Commercial Roadway Intersections Traffic in Residential Areas i Noise ¢’",/,/ Safety Vegetation and Wildlife Business Displacement Air Quality Cultural Resources Hazardous Materials Geology Hydrology Jobs/Housing Balance Water Service Sanitary Sewer Service Gas & Electric Service Schools Parks Electromag-netic Field Hazard //" Visual/Aesthetics Cumulative Growth-Inducement S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable *This impact is significant indi,Adually and cumulatively. No checkmark for a given impact category indicates no impact. REID-HELLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE ix MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR aviation facilities at SJC would mitigate the cumulative impact, but not the impact due to closure of RHV. In addition, retention of all general aviation facilities at SJC would not allow SJC to accommodate current and future demand for commercial air carrier services. (Nonsignificant Impact .with Mitigation, but Mitigation Itself would Result in Additional Significant Impacts) C.IMPACTS ON ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS Closure Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Mitigation Closing RHV will, in the short-term, have little impact on nearby intersections because RHV is a relatively small generator of traffic. Specifically, closure of RHV will eliminate between 92 and 130 PM peak-hour traffic trips, with the exact number dependant upon which SJC master plan alternative is approved. (Beneficial Impact) Redeveloping the property with a park will have a negligible impact on nearby intersections because a park, like the airport, is a relatively small generator of peak- hour traffic. In fact, a passive-use park would actually generate fewer traffic trips than does the airport. (Beneficial Impact) Redevetoping the property with residential uses will have a significant impact at 7 of the 20 study intersections during the PM peak-hour. Daily traffic volumes associated with residentia! uses on the property would be over 15 times greater than keeping the airport open, even assuming the maximum downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC. (Significant Impact) Redeveloping the property with industrial/commercial uses will have a significant impact at 8 of the 20 study intersections during the PM peak-hour. Daily traffic volumes associated with industrial/commercial uses on the property would be almost 25 times greater than keeping the airport open, even assuming the maximum downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC. (Significant Impact) The mitigation for the impacts at up to eight intersections would consist of adding turning lanes and/or through lanes to the intersections, as described in the EIR text. However, almost a!! of the required intersection improvements would require additional right-of-way which, in turn, .would likely affect existing businesses or residences. Thus, while these measures are f~asible from an engineering perspective, the measures themselves would create additional impacts which would need to be mitigated. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation, but Mitigation Itself would Result in Additional Significant Impacts) D.IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC THROUGH RESIDENTIAL AREAS Closure Closing RHV will, in the short-term, have little impact on traffic in residential areas Impacts because RHV is a relatively small generator of traffic. Specifically, closure of RHV REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE x MARCH 1996 DtL~"I Redevelopment Impacts Mitigation will eliminate between 92 and 130 PM peak-hour traffic trips, a small number of which may currently use nearby residential streets. (Beneficial Impact) Redeveloping the property with a park will have a negligible impact on traffic in residential areas because a park, like the airport, is a relatively small generator of peak-hour traffic. In fact, a passive-use park would actually generate fewer traffic trips than does the airport. (Beneficial Impact) The residential redevelopment scenario would significantly increase traffic on Cunningham Avenue and Waverly Avenue in existing residential neighborhoods. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) The industrial/commercial scenario would significantly increase traffic on Ocala Avenue in existing residential neighborhoods. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) There are no measures available which could reasonably mitigate this impact to a less- than-significant level. E.NOISE IMPACTS Closure Impacts Closure of RHV would eliminate a substantial existing source of noise in the project area. Specifically, the noise produced by aircraft landing at and taking off from RHV would be eliminated. Since aircraft noise presently affects existing land uses in the area, its elimination would reduce overall noise levels. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Because much of the Reid-Hillview property is exposed to noise levels well above 60 dB from traffic on Capitol Expressway and Tully Road, development of a park on those portions of the property would be inconsistent with San Jose’s noise policies. (Significant Impact) Because much of the Reid-Hillview property is exposed to noise levels well above 60 dB from traffic on Capitol Expressway and Tully Road, development of residences on those portions of the property would be inconsistent with San Jose’s noise policies. (Significant Impact) The development of industrial/commercial uses on the RHV property would be consistent with San Jose’s noise policies. (Nonsignificant Impact) Traffic generated by any of the three redevelopment scenarios would not cause significant increases in noise levels in areas where there are noise-sensitive uses such as residences and schools. (Nonsignificant Impact) REID-HKLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xi MA_RCH 1996 DRAFr ErR Mitigation Under the residential and park redevelopment scenarios, mitigation would consist of the construction of soundwalls along Capitol Expressway and Tully Road. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) F.SAFETY IMPACTS Closure Impacts If RHV. is closed, the risk of injury or death due to a.general aviation.accident in the vicinity of the airport would be lower than if the airport was to remain open. [Note: The risk would not be zero, however, because some portions of the RHV area are within ~he airport traffic area for SJC.] This would be a beneficial impact for the Reid-Hillview area. However, this benefit would be offset by increased risks in the vicinity of those airports to which the planes from RHV would be relocated. (Nonsignificant Impact) Redevelopment Impacts SRI International calculated the number of traffic accidents and injuries which would be expected if the airport were to be closed and redeveloped, and compared those numbers to those associated with leaving the airport open. Since redevelopment of the airport property with a park would generate roughly as many vehicle trips as does the airport, there would essentially be no difference in the projected number of accidents between these two scenarirs. (Nonsignificant Impact) Redevelopment of the airport property with residential uses would result in more traffic and, therefore, would result in 14 additional traffic accidents each year (6 of which would involve injuries) at 20 study intersections, as compared to those which would occur if the airport remained open. Redevelopment of the airport property with industrial!commercial uses would result in 26 additional traffic accidents each year (11 of which would involve injuries) at 20 study intersections, as compared to those which would occur if the airport remained open. SRI calculated an 11- to 18-times greater likelihood of an automobile-related fatality at one of these 20 intersections from these two redevelopment scenarios, than of an on-the-ground fatality arising from a general aviation accident. (Nonsignificant Impact) G.VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS Closure Impacts In the short-term, closure of RHV would not have any impacts on vegetation and wildlife because no changes to the airport property would occur. (No Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Any redevelopment of the airport property would result in a significant vegetation and wildlife impact because individual Burrowing Owls (a Species of Special Concern) would be directly affected, and because up to _100 acres of optimum Burrowing Owl habitat would be lost. (Significant Impact) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xii MARCH 1996 D~ EIR Mitigation Any owls located on the site would not be moved or disturbed during the nesting season. Outside of the nesting season, mitigation would consist of relocating the individual Burrowing Owls to a suitable site. Mitigation for the loss of biologically- important habitat would involve the creation of replacement habitat and/or some action to permanently preserve similar habitat. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) H.BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS Closure Impacts The proposed closure of RHV will displace approximately 29 business tenants at the airport. This impact does not include the impact on an unknown number of businesses which are among the County’s 261 tenants who rent hangars, shelters, and/or tie-downs for their aircraft at RHV. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) Mitigation Mitigation for the displacement of businesses by a project typically includes the payment of monies to the affected business owner to cover various relocation costs and, where applicable, the buyout of existing leases. This mitigation is included as a part of this proposed project. In many cases, businesses which are impacted by a given project are able to reopen at a new location. However, in this case, it is likely that many of the existing aviation-related businesses would likely go out of business if RHV is closed. The reason for this -is that there is very limited space at other airports (most notably, South County and Palo Alto) where these businesses could reopen. Therefore, this business displacement impact would be significant and unavoidable for this project. Redevelopment Impa~ts (No Impact) I.AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Closure Impacts Closure of the airport without any redevelopment would, in the short-term, be beneficial since it would eliminate the emissions which presently are associated with the operation of the airport. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment of the property with a park would result in less emissions than under existing conditions. (Beneficial Impact) Compared to existing conditions, a significant increase in emissions would occur if the property was redeveloped with either residential or industrial/commercial uses. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xiii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Mitigation If the future redevelopment project applicant institutes a trip reduction program, emissions of pollutants would be reduced. However, with regard to emissions of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, it is doubtful that both of these pollutants could be reduced to less-than-significant levels given their projected magnitude, even with a trip reduction pro~am. J.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Any future redevelopment would be on a site where there is known contamination. Further, although it is not known whether any of the nine existing underground fuel storage tanks at RHV are leaking, such a possibility is considered likely because leakage associated with older, single-walled tanks is common. (Significant Impact) Mitii~ation Prior to any redevelopment of the site, ongoing remediation should continue until levels of groundwater contamination fall to levels which are acceptable under regulatory standards. Prior. to any redevelopment of the site, the nine existing fuel tanks should be removed and testingfor soil and/or groundwater contamination should occur. If contamination is found, remediation should occur until cleanup has achieved satisfactory results. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) K.GEOLOGIC IMPACTS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment with a park would have no geologic impacts since no structures or buildings of note would be constructed under that scenario. (No Impact) Under the residential or industfiallcommercial redevelopment scenarios, there are no onsite geologic conditions present which cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques. (Nonsignificant Impact) L.HYDROLOGIC IMPACTS Closure (No Impact) Impacts REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xiv MARCH 1996 DRAFT ErR ~Redevelopment Impacts Mitigation Redevelopment of the site with a park would result in a lesser volume of stormwater runoff, as compared to existing conditions, because less of the site would be paved and/or covered by buildings. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment of the site with industrial/commercial or residential uses would increase the volume of stormwater runoff, as compared to existing conditions, because more of the site would be paved and/or covered with buildings. Since downstream flood control facilities are operating at or near capacity, this increased runoff could cause flooding. (Significant Impact) Construction of onsite stormwater detention facilities would likely be required under the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios. These facilities would retain stormwater runoff on the site until after peak storm flows have subsided in the downstream flood control system. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) M.IMPACTS ON SAN JOSE’S JOBS/HOUS~G BALANCE Closure Impacts Redevelopment Impacts The closure of RHV would directly eliminate 101 jobs within San Jose, which would have the effect of slightly worsening San Jose’s projected shortage of jobs in relationship to the housing supply in year 2000. (Nonsignificant Impact) Assuming that six persons were to be employed at the park, there would be a net loss of approximately 95 jobs, as compared to leaving RHV open. This net loss of 95 jobs would have the effect of slightly worsening San Jose’s projected shortage of jobs in relationship to the supply of housing in year 2000. (Nonsignificant Impact) The projected population under the residential redevelopment scenario would be 7,136 persons, which is roughly equivalent to the population of Los Altos Hills, or just less than twice the population of Monte Sereno. The residential scenario would also substantially worsen San Jose’s projected shortage of jobs in relationship to the supply of housing in year 2000. This imbalance would be further worsened by the residential scenario because of the loss of the !01 jobs which presently exist on the airport property. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) The industrial/commercial redevelopment scenario would generate 5,827 onsite employees. This would result in a net increase of 5,726 employees, as compared to leaving RHV open. The creation of these jobs on the airport site would substantially lessen San Jose’s jobs/housing imbalance. (Beneficial Impact) Mitigation The only mitigation for this impact under the residential scenario would be to find other sites in the City where additional jobs (beyond that already identified in the General Plan) could be located. This is not considered practical because the Cit), has already completed such a task as a part of its recent General Plan update process. REtD-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xv MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR N.IMPACTS ON WATER SERVICE Closure Impacts Closure of RHV would result in a decrease in the amount of water used on the site, as compared to existing conditions. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment of the property’ with any of the three potential uses would likely not require substantial improvements to the area’s water supply system. This conclusion would need to be verified at the time a development application is received, based upon required firefighting water flows. (Nonsignificant Impact) O.IMPACTS ON SANITARY SEWER SERVICE Closure Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Mitigation Closure of RHV would result in a decrease in the amount of sewage generated on the site, as compared to existing conditions. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment of the RHV property as a park would not likely generate notably more sewage than does the airport. (Nonsignificant Impact) Construction of either the residential scenario or industrial/commercial scenario would be a substantially more intense use of the site, with regard to the generation of effluent. It is likely that this increase in intensity would require offsite improvements to the sanitary sewer system. (Significant Impact) Mitigation would consist of the upgrade of offsite line(s) or the installation of a new line to handle the projected sewage flow. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) P.IMPACTS ON GAS AND ELECTRIC SERVICES Closure Impacts Closure of RHV would result in a decrease in the amount of gas and electricity used on the site, as compared to existing conditions. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment of the property with any of the three potential uses would likely not require substantial improvements to the area’s gas and eleclMc supply system. This conclusion would need to be verified at the time a development application is received, based upon a specific site plan. (Nonsignificant Impact) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE "xvi MARCH 1996 DtL4_FT EIR Q.INIPACTS ON SCHOOLS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment with. a park,or industrial/commercial uses would have no impacts on schools. (No Impact) Redevelopment of the property with residential uses would have a substantial effect upon both elementary and high school districts. The residential scenario would generate a total of approximately 1,854 students. Given the existing levels of enrollment in the three affected school districts, which are at or above capacity, these additional students would result in substantial overcrowding in the system. The degree of overcrowding will likely directly lead to the construction of a new elementa_r3’ school. The construction of a school would be a physical change to the environment with its own set of environmental impacts. (Significant Impact) Mitigation The impact could be mitigated by the payment of a school impact fee. Using the methodology described in the EIR text, the payment for this scenario would be approximately $6.2 million. Another way for this impact to be mitigated would be for the project to include a school as apart of the overall project plan. In any case, whether a future project includes a school within the project, or whether an impact fee is paid to the school district and the district builds the school, a new school at some location would be required. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) R.IMPACTS ON PARKS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment of the site as a park would add a new recreational facility to the area’s existing park system. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment of the site with industrial/commercial uses would have no impacts on parks. (No Impact) Under the residential redevelopment scenario, there would be a need for a new +25- acre park, based upon San Jose’s General Plan goal. The construction of a park would be a physical change to the environment with its own set of environmental impacts. (Significant Impact) Mitigation The mitigation for this impact would be to include a park on the site as a part of the overall residential plan for the site. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xvii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR S.HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS Closure (No Impact) !mpa~,ts -Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment with a park would not expose people to elevated EMF levels for extended periods of time. (Nonsignificant Impact) Under the residential and industrial]commercial redevelopment scenarios, it is likely that residences or workplaces would be located within the easterly portion of the property which is exposed to elevated EMF levels from the PG&E electric transmission lines. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Mitigation would consist of designing the project so that inhabited structures are located outside of the zone exposed to elevated EMF levels, based upon onsite EMF measurements by qualified personnel. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) T.VISUAL/AESTHETIC IMPACTS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment of the site as a park would constitute a visual and aesthetic amenity in the area. (Beneficial Impact) The redevelopment of the RHV property with either industrial]commercial or residential uses would be a more intense use of the property than is the airport. Assuming that the taller buildings of those scenarios would be located on areas of the site not adjacent to the existing single-family neighborhoods, those buildings would not create a significant visual impact upon those existing neighborhoods. (Nonsignificant Impact) U.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Closure Impacts There is one significant Cumulative impact associated with the proposed closure of RHV. That impact is the effect on air transportation, as described previously in this Sum.mary on page viii. Redevelopment Impacts (No Impact) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xviii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR V.GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts None of the redevelopment scenarios would have substantial growth-inducing impacts because the site is located in a developed area. Although such infill redevelopment would have significant impacts, as described in this EIR, the redevelopment would not lead to substantial additional growth. The only additional growth would potentially be some minor infill development to serve the land uses on the RHV site. However, even that secondary growth would not be substantial because the area is already served by numerous services. (Nonsignificant Impact) W. EFFECTS ON URBAN SERVICES Table S-2 summarizes the effects of the project upon existing urban services in the RHV area. These effects are not environmental impacts, as defined by CEQA, but the information is provided here because it may be useful in the decision-making process for this project. The reader is referred to pages 82-85 of the EIR text for a discussion of these issues. TABLE S-2 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON URBAN SERVICES CATEGORY Direct/Short-Term Closure Effects Redevelopment Effects Park Residential Industrial/ Commercial Police Services Fire Services Library Services B = Beneficial NS = Not Substantial S = Substantial No checkmark for a given category indicates no effect. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xix MARCH t996 DRAFt" EIR SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives to the project, plus the no project alternative, were evaluated in Section IV of the EIR. These alternatives would, to varying degrees, partially or fully achieve the objective of the project, which is defined as removing an incompatible land use from the area. However, unlike the project which achieves this objective by closing RHV, these alternatives keep RHV open and, instead, remove some or all of the incompatible land uses around the airport. The alternatives evaluated are as follows: No Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Keep RHV Open and Retain Existing Surrounding Land Uses Remove All Incompatible Land Uses Within All Safety Zones and Within the 65 dB CNEL Contour Remove All Incompatible Land Uses Within FAA Safety Zones and ALUC Inner Safety Zone Remove All Incompatible Land Uses Within FAA Safety Zones Only Move the Airfield 500’ to the North and Acquire Hillview Park Each of these alternatives would avoid the significant impacts of the proposed project, all of which were summarized on the previous pages. However, all of these alternatives, except the no project alternative, would require the displacement of existing businesses, residences, and/or institutional uses. Alternatives A and B would require major displacements, while Alternatives C and D would require displacements to a much smaller degree. Displacements of businesses, residences, and institutional uses would constitute significant environmental impacts. Table S-3 summarizes the pros and cons of these alternatives. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Of all the alternatives, including the proposed project and the No Project Alternative, Alternative C would be the environmentally superior alternative for the following reasons: 1) it avoids all of the significant impacts of the proposed project and the future redevelopment of the site, 2) it avoids the major displacement of residences, businesses, and public facilities of Alternatives A and B, 3) it avoids the increased land use compatibility impacts north of the airport of Alternative D, 4) it has minimal short-term and tong-term environmental impact, and 5) by removing facilities from the FAA safety zones at the south end of the airport, it would reduce the likely severity, of an accident occurring in the safety Zones when compared to existing conditions. This last reason is supported by historical accident data at RHV which show a number of accidents occurring just short of the runways (i.e., in the Eastridge parking lot and at Tully Road). REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xx MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR ;I r z,o Z,~ E ,-. ~ o E< < E~ < AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The proposed project is highly controversial in Santa Clara County. The controversy stems from the fact that RHV is surrounded by land uses which are not compatible with an airport, such land uses having been built many years after the airport was opened. In fact, it is likely that many of these surrounding land uses would not have been built had the plans and policies which are in place today been in place at the time those uses were approved. Many persons residing in the neighborhoods around RHV are bothered by the noise from the aircraft and are fearfu! of harm from a potential plane crash. Although no one on the ground has ever been injured or killed due to an aircraft accident in the 57-year history of RHV, the accidents which have occurred have served to bolster these fears. Further, although studies and statistics show that RHV is a safe facility (its accident rate is about half the national average), and that the risk from non-aviation accidents is much greater than from aviation accidents, the fears of the community have not been allayed. The value of RHV to the community as a whole is another facet of the controversy surrounding the proposed project. Various federal, gtate, regional, and local plans recognize the importance of both commercial and general aviation airports to the community. RHV is Santa Clara County’s largest general aviation facility. The County’s second largest genera! aviation facility, San Jose International Airport (SJC), is in the process of updating its Master Plan. All of the SJC Master Plan alternatives (except "no project") would downsize SJC’s general aviation facilities to make room for the substantial growth of air carrier and air cargo operations. Assuming RHV were to remain open, most of the aircraft from SJC would be relocated to RHV since RHV is a designated reliever airport for SJC. If RHV were to be closed,there would be a significant shortage of general aviation facilities in the County, assuming SJC downsizes its facilities. The prospect of this scenario becoming a reality has greatly alarmed businesses which depend upon (directly or indirectly) general aviation facilities, as well as various aviation-related organizations. The closure of RHV is opposed by the Reid-Hillview Airport Association, the Coalition for Responsible Airport Management and Policy (CRAMP), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the San Jose Chamber of Commerce, and the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group. On February 20, 1996, the San Jose City Council, reversing a 1990 position, declared its support for RHV as "an irreplaceable asset to the public transportation system of the County of Santa Clara." The controversy surrounding RHV is heightened by the fact that there are few other locations in Santa Clara County which have been found to be suitable as a potential replac(ment for RHV. The only potential sites are located in the South County area, and each of those sites would have its own set of environmental constraints and issues. Further, past ideas for expansion of either Palo Alto Airport or South County Airport have been dropped for environmental reasons and due to communit?’ concerns. Finally, this project is controversial because the closure of RHV is opposed by the FAA. The FAA has indicated to the County that legal action may be forthcoming if the County attempts to close the airport prior to the year 2008. It is the position of the FAA that RHV cannot be closed prior to 2008 because of conditions the Count), agreed to when it accepted grant monies from the FAA. The legal opinion of the County Counsel’s office is that the County is not obligated to keep the airport open. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xxii MARCH !996 DRAFT EIR The primary short-term issue to be resolved is whether or not to close RHV. If RHV is closed, the long- term issue to be resolved will be what to do with the 180 acres of land now occupied by the airport. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS Although not a part of the EIR, Attachment A presents information on economic considerations related to the proposed project. The first part of Attachment A presents the findings of a report which quantifies the economic impact of RHV on the economy. The second part of Attachment A provides information as to the appraised value of the RHV property and costs which would be incurred by the County in closing RHV. The economic impact report found that there are 101 jobs within 29 businesses at RHV. These businesses and employees generate revenue, generate induced employment through the purchase of goods and services, and generate tax revenue for governments. Out-of-town visitors arriving in the area on RHV aircraft also generate both employment and revenue due to their use of local visitor-related services (e.g., hotels, restaurants, etc.). Finally, roughly 50 businesses in the area have their business aircraft based at RHV, such aircraft being used in various aspects of the business. These 50 businesses also create employment and revenue in the economy. In 1995, it is estimated that $10.7 million in direct business revenue was generated by RHV. Revenue generated by businesses with aircraft based at RHV is estimated at$21 million, $7.4 million of which was related to the use of RHV. A total of 372 jobs in the local economy is either directly or indirectly related to RHV. The appraisal of the RHV property found that the land would be valued at roughly $49.5 million under the residential redevelopment scenario, and roughly $33 million under the industrial/commercial redevelopment scenario. No value was appraised for the park scenario because it is assumed that the land would remain in public ownership. Costs to the County associated with the closure of the airport (including buyout of business leases), site demolition, redevelopment infrastructure improvements, and cleanup of contamination ranged from a low of $23.1 million for the park redevelopment scenario, to a high of $28.1 million for the industrial/commercial redeve!opment scenario. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xxiii MARCH 1996 DKA.~ EIR ATTACHMENT C A READER’S GUIDE TO THE DEIR - REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE PROJECT The Palo Alto Airport is referenced on the following pages: Pa__a_gg_Content viii Closure would significantly impact other airports in the area, exceeding the available capacity for relocation of airport. xiii Unlikely that the business tenants at the Reid-Hillview airport could relocate to the Palo Alto Airport. xxii Past ideas for expansion at Palo Alto Airport have been dropped. 1 Description of general aviation airports in Santa Clara County. 14 Description of county plans relevant to the three general aviation airports. 21,23 Description of general aviation airports in Santa Clara County. 25-26 Location and capacity of the 16 general aviation airports in the study area. 29-32 Impacts of alternative actions regarding San Jose International Airport and Reid-Hillview Airport on general aviation airports in the study area. 37-39 Evaluation of, and rejection of, possible expansion of Palo Alto Airport. 63 Comparison of aviation accident rates at Reid-Hillview Airport and other Bay Area airports, including Palo Alto Airport. 66 Risk assessment for Palo Alto Airport, if Reid-Hillview Airport is closed. 70 There is limited space at Palo Alto Airport for relocation of Reid-Hillview airport-related businesses. 107 Scope of the DEIR does not address environmental impacts associated with relocating aircraft to other airports, other than quantifying the number of aircraft and flight operations. A-1 Explanation of the Enterprise Account through which the three county general aviation airports are funded. DRAFT -ATTACHMENT D CERTIFIED MAIL April 23, 1996 Julie Render Environmental Analyst County of Santa Clara Environmental Analysis Department 3331 North First Street- Building B San Jose, California 95134-1906 Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Project Draft EIR SCH No. 95103043 Dear Ms. Render: The Palo Alto City Council reviewed and discussed the above-cited Draft Environmental Impact Report at its April 22 Council meeting. Based on our review of the document and our knowledge of the issues involved, we endorse Alternative C, which would keep Reid-Hillview Airport open and remove all incompatible land uses within FAA safety zones. The DEIR adequately addresses the impacts which the closure of Reid-Hillview Airport would have on air transportation facilities within the area. We believe the required mitigation to compensate for the cumulative loss of general aviation facilities, if San Jose International Airport’s master plan is also implemented, would be unacceptable. The Palo Alto Airport cannot be expanded to accommodate the demand that would be created by the aircraft displaced from Reid-Hillview and San Jose airports. The description of the Palo Alto Airport and its environs on page 38 of the DEIR is accurate and expansion would be contrary to our airport lease agreement. The DEIR also rightly acknowledges that Moffett Federal Airfield should not be considered available as a replacement facility. We are also concerned about the ability of the County to uphold the terms of the lease agreement with the City of Palo Alto for the operation of the Palo Alto Airport. Without the revenue generated by Reid-Hillview Airport, will it be possible to maintain South County Airport and still allow Palo Alto-generated revenue to be used at Palo Alto, as required by the lease? Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR. If you wish any further information from the City of Palo Alto, please contact any of the following staff members: Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official (415/329-2679) Bill Fellman, Manager, Real Property (415/329-2472) Vicci Rudin, Assistant to the City Manager (415/329-2512). Sincerely, Lanie Wheeler Mayor June Fleming, City Manager City Council Nick Petredis, Chair, Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport Larry Feldman, Acting Aviation Director, County of Santa Clara Jim Gilliland Bill Fellman Vicci Rudin DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT County of Santa Clara March 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT WHAT’S IN THIS DOCUMENT This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) which examines the environmental impacts of the proposed closure of Reid-Hillview Airport. WHAT YOU SHOULD DO Please read this DEIR. If you have important environmental information that has not been considered in this document, or if you have comments about its accuracy or adequacy, please send your written comments to the County of Santa Clara at the address below. You may give your comments orally at a public heating regarding the information in this DEIR, which will be held at 7:00 P.M. on April 25, 1996 at Ocala Middle School, 2800 Ocala Avenue, San Jose. Send written comments to: Julie Render, Environmental Analyst Santa Clara County - Environmental Analysis 3331 North First Street - Building B San Jose, California 95134-1906 Deadline for receipt of comments: April 30, 1996 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, responses to written and oral comments will be prepared and published in a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR will then be considered by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in an advertised public meeting, and will be certified if it is determined to be in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Following certification of the FEIR, the project will be considered for approval by the Board of Supervisors. TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....................... A. B. C. 1 PROJECT LOCATION .......................................1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...................................1 PROJECT DESCRIgrION ....................................7 1.Redevelopment as Public Park ............................7 2.Redevelopment with Residential Uses .......................8 3.Redevelopment with Industrial/Commercial Uses ................8 4.Project Scheduling .....................................11 PROJECT OBJECTIVE ......................................12 USES OF THE EIR .........................................12 II.PROJECT CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS AND POLICIES .............13 No B. C. D. E. F. G. H. NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS (NPIAS) ....13 CALIFORNIA AIR SYSTEM PLAN .............................13 REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN ..........................13 SANTA CLARA COUNTY AIRPORTS LAND USE PLAN ............14 SANTA CLARA COUNTY AIRPORTS MASTER PLAN ..............14 SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ......................14 SAN JOSE GENERAL PLAN ..................................15 EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT POLICY .........................17 III.ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION ............18 A.LAND USE ...............................................18 1.Existing Land Use .....................................18 2.Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Impacts ...............20 3.Land Use Impacts .....................................20 4.Mitigation for Land Use Impacts ...........................21 B.AIR TRANSPORTATION ....................................21 1.Existing Setting .......................................21 2.Thresholds of Significance for Air Transportation Impacts .........24 3.Air Transportation Impacts ...............................24 4.Mitigation for Impacts to Air Transportation ...................33 C.TRAFFIC ................................................40 1.Existing Setting .......................................40 2.Thresholds of Significance for Traffic Impacts .................44 3.Traffic Impacts .......................................44 4.Mitigation for Traffic Impacts .............................49 D.NOISE ..................................................53 1.Existing Setting .......................................53 2.Thresholds of Significance for Noise Impacts ..................57 3.Noise Impacts ........................................58 4.Mitigation for Noise Impacts .............................60 REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE i MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Fo No No go PUBLIC SAFETY ..........................................61 1.Existing Setting .......................................61 2.Thresholds of Significance for Public Safety Impacts .............64 3.Public Safety Impacts ...................................64 4.Mitigation for Public Safety Impacts ........................67 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE ...............................67 1.Existing Setting .......................................67 2.Thresholds of Significance for Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts .....68 3.Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts ..........................68 4.Mitigation for Vegetation and Wi ~:iiife Impacts .................69 BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS ..........................69 1.Existing Setting .......................................69 2.Threshold of Significance for Business Displacement Impacts .......70 3.Business Displacement Impacts ............................70 4.Mitigation for Business Displacement Impacts .................70 AIR QUALITY ............................................70 1.Existing Setting .......................................70 2.Threshold of Significance for Air Quality Impacts ...............71 3.Air Quality Impacts ....................................71 4.Mitigation for Air Quality Impacts .........................72 CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................~ ...............73 1.Existing Setting .......................................73 2.Thresholds of Significance for Impacts to Cultural Resources .......73 3.Impacts to Cultural Resources .............................73 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................74 1.Existing Setting .......................................74 2.Thresholds of Significance for Hazardous Materials Impacts ........74 3.Hazardous Materials Impacts .............................75 4.Mitigation for Hazardous Materials Impacts ...................75 GEOLOGY ...............................................76 1.Existing Setting .......................................76 2.Thresholds of Significance for Geologic Impacts ................76 3.Geologic Impacts ......................................76 HYDROLOGY ............................................77 1.Existing Setting .......................................77 2.Thresholds of Significance for Hydrologic Impacts ..............77 3.Hydrologic Impacts ....................................77 4.Mitigation for Hydrologic Impacts ..........................77 REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE ii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Mo No Oo P° Qo Ro POPULATION, JOBS, AND HOUSING ..........................78 1.Existing Setting .......................................78 2.Thresholds of Significance for Population, Jobs, and Housing .......78 3.Population, Jobs, and Housing Impacts .......................78 4.Mitigation for Population, Jobs, and Housing Impacts ............79 UTILITIES ...............................................79 1 Existing Setting .......................................79 2.Thresholds of Significance for Utilities Impacts ................80 3.Impacts on Utilities ....................................80 4.Mitigation for Impacts on Utilities ..........................82 URBAN SERVICES .........................................82 1.Fire Services .........................................82 2.Police Services .......................................83 3.Park and Recreation Services .............................84 4.Library Services ......................................84 5.Schools ............................................85 HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS .......87 1.Existing EMF Levels on the Reid-Hillview Property .............88 2.Threshold of Significance for Hazards Associated with EMFs .......89 3.Impacts Associated with EMF Hazards ......................89 4.Mitigation for EMF-Related Impacts ........................90 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................90 1.Existing Setting .......................................90 2.Thresholds of Significance for Visual and Aesthetic Impacts .......90 3.Visual and Aesthetic Impacts .............................91 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ....................................91 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ...............................92 IV.ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .....................93 A.INTRODUCTION ..........................................93 B.NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ................................96 C.ALTERNATIVE A - REMOVE ALL INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES WITHIN ALL SAFETY ZONES AND THE 65 DB CNEL CONTOUR .....96 D.ALTERNATIVE B - REMOVE ALL INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES WITHIN FAA SAFETY ZONES AND ALUC INNER SAFETY ZONE . . .101 E.ALTERNATIVE C - REMOVE ALL INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES WITHIN FAA SAFETY ZONES ONLY .........................102 F.ALTERNATIVE D -MOVE THE AIRFIELD 500’ TO THE NORTH AND ACQUIRE HILLVIEW PARK .................................103 G.IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ..........................................103 REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE iii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED .......................105 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ...............................106 VII.EIR AUTHOR AND CONSULTANTS ................................108 VIII.REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSUL~D .........................110 ATTACHMENT A ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP OF RHV TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY AND COSTS ASSOCIATED W~H CLOSURE & REDEVELOPMENT ..................................A-1 ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP OF RHV TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY ....A-1 ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CLOSURE OF REID- HILLVIEW AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE ................A-4 [Note: Attachment A is bound in this document for convenience, but is not part of this EIR.] APPENDICES THE FOLLOWING APPENDICES COMPRISE VOLUME II OF THE DRAFT EIR: APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION APPENDIX B PHASE I TECHNICAL REPORT ON AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION DATA APPENDIX C TRAFFIC MITIGATION REPORT APPENDIX D NOISE REPORT APPENDIX E PHASE I RISK ASSESSMENT APPENDIX F BURROWING OWL SURVEY APPENDIX G APPENDIX H AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX I LAND APPRAISAL REPORT REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE iv MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 1 ! Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Regional Project Location Map .................................2 Vicinity Project Location Map ..................................3 Aerial Photograph of Project Area ...............................4 Site Layout and Access for Residentia! Redevelopment Scenario ..........9 Site Layout and Access for Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Scenario .. 10 Existing Land Uses ..........................................19 Airport Study Area ..........................................25 Locations Identified as a Potential Airport Site ......................35 Roadway Network & Study Intersections ..........................41 Comparison of Year 2000 Site-Generated Trips ......................45 CNEL Contours for 171,500 Annual Aircraft Operations ...............55 CNEL Contours for 241,400 Annual Aircraft Operations ...............56 Existing Safety Zones at Reid-Hillview Airport ......................62 Alternative A ..............................................97 Alternative B ..............................................98 Alternative C ..............................................99 Alternative D ..............................................100 REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE v MARCH 1996 DRAFT E!R TABLES Table S-1 Table S-2 Table S-3 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table A-1 Table A-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts ...............................ix Summary of Effects on Urban Services ............................xix Comparison of Alternatives ....................................xxi Chronology of Selected Events Related to Reid-Hillview Airport ..........5 Residential Redevelopment Scenario ..............................8 Industrial/Commercial Redevelopment Scenario ......................11 Historic and Projected Activity Levels at Reid-Hillview Airport ...........22 Year 2000 General Aviation Forecasts at Selected Bay Area Airports .......26 ~ an Jose International Airport Master Plan Alternatives ................27 Projected Number of Aircraft to be Relocated Under Various RHV and SJC Scenarios ...........................28 Impact of SJC Master Plan Alternatives on Number of Based Aircraft at Various Bay Area Airports Assuming Reid-Hillview Remains Open ........29 Impact of SJC Master Plan Alternatives on Number of Annual GA Operations at Various Bay Area Airports Assuming RHV Remains Open ............30 Impact of SJC Master Plan Alternatives on Number of Based Aircraft at Various Bay Area Airports Assuming Reid-Hillview is Closed ...........31 Impact of SJC Master Plan Alternatives on Number of Annual GA Operations at Various Bay Area Airports Assuming RHV is Closed ................32 Summary Matrix: Demand for New Replacement Airport ...............33 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections ................42 Comparison of Intersection Levels of Service .......................43 Traffic Generated by Various Scenarios ...........................46 Comparison of Year 2000 PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ..............47 PM Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service with Mitigation ............51 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Inside the 60 dB CNEL Contour .............54 Estimated Traffic-Related Noise Increases ..........................59 Reid-Hillview Accident Summary 1964 - 1994 ......................63 Statistical Risk from General Aviation Activity at RHV in Year 2000 Assuming the Airport Remains Open ...................65 Comparison of Year 2000 Emissions .............................72 Students Generated by Residential Redevelopment Scenario .............86 Regulations & Policies Related to Land Use Compatibility Around Airport . . . 94 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................95 Summary of Reid-Hillview Economic Impacts .......................A-3 Estimated Economic Factors Associated with RHV Closure and Redevelopment ............................................A-5 RE1D-H]LLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE vi MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR EIR SUMMARY REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE SUMMARY DESCFdPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is the closure of Reid-ttillview Airport, a general aviation facility located on a 180-acre site in the easterly portion of the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Reid-Hillview (RI-Fv’) is one of three general aviation airports in Santa Clara County-which are operated by the Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department. The objective of the proposed project is to remove an incompatible land use. The project does not include the development of any replacement land uses on the airport site - assuming the airport is closed - since no replacement land uses have been decided upon or put forila. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that the airport property will be redeveloped in the future if the airport is closed. Therefore, in keeping with the CEQA requirement that an EIR evaluate "the whole of an action", tlhis EIR discusses the environmental impacts of three possible replacement land use scenarios. This EIR does not purport to be a full environmental document with respect to the possible redevelopment of F J-W; any such future redevelopment would have to undergo its own separate, detailed environmental analysis prior to approval of such a project. These three scenarios, which were jointly developed by Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose, are surrmaarized as follows: Redevelopment as Public Park Under this scenario, the airport property would be redeveIoped as a public park, presumably under the ownership and operation of either Santa Clara County or the City of San Jose. The park scenario assumes "passive uses" such as picnicking, walking, and jogging. It does not include "active use" facilities such as tennis courts, baseball fields, swimming pools, etc. Redevelopment with Residential Uses Under this scenario, the airport property would be redeveloped with residential land uses. The assumed densities described in this EIR would yield approximately 2,280 dwelling Units on the airport site. The scenario assurnes a mix of residential dwellings, including single-family detached units and multi-family units (e.g., towmhouses, condominiums, apartments, etc.). Redevelopment with Industrial/Commercial Uses Under this scenario, the airport property would be redeveloped with industrial and commercial land uses. The assumed densities described in this EIR would yield approximately 2.4 million square feet of industrial/commercial uses. Typical neighborlhood commercial and community shopping development would result in t-story buildings with adjacent parking. Typical light industrial or industrial park development at the assumed density would result in 1 to 2-story buildings on the site. REID-HILLVIEW .MRPORT CLOSURE vii MA.RCH 1996 DRAFT EIR SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The following discussion, and Table S-l, summarize the primary environmental impacts of the proposed closure of RI-P,L Where applicable, the discussion differentiates between the direct, short-term environmental impacts of the closure of the airport and the long-term environmental impacts under the three potential redevelopment scenarios for the airport property. The reader is referred to the main body of this EIR for detailed discussions of the environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures. A. LAND USE IMPACTS Closure Impacts The proposed closure of R.Wv" will result in a beneficial land use impact with regard to the issue of land use compatibility. This statement is based on the fact that, over the years since RITV was opened in 1939, various land use decisions were made which have resulted in the construction of uses near the ai~ort which are not compatible with an airport, based upon criteria contained in various land use plans. (Beneficial Irnpac0 Redevelopment Impacts If Reid-Hillview is closed, the redevelopment of the 180-acre airport property--for parK, residential, or commercial/industrial uses (at the intensities stated in Section I of this EIR) would generally be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. (Nonsignificant Impac0 B. AIR TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Closure Impacts If RHV is closed, the demand for general aviation facilities would significantly exceed the available capacity at other airports in the area. Further, the magnitude of this significant impact would be substantially greater if San Jose International Airport (SJC) adopts any of its proposed master plan alternatives (other than "no project" which would retain all of its existing general aviation facilities). Under this cumulative scenario, up to 671 aircraft would need to be relocated to other airports. (Significant Impact Individually and Cumulatively) Mitigation Mitigation could consist of 1) expansion of existing facilities at other airport(s), or 2) construction of a replacement airport somewhere in Santa Clara County, or 3) use of Moffett Federal Airfield, or 4) retention of all general aviation facilities at SJC. While expansion of existing facilities at other airports (e.g., Palo Alto or South County) is technically feasible, such expansion would result in additional significant envirormaental impacts. Previous studies regarding t-he feasibility of constructing a replacement general aviation airport in Santa Clara County have identified four potential sites in the South County area. However, each of the four potential sites has its own set of potentially significant environmental impacts. While Moffett Federal Airfield could accommodate general aviation demand, this mitigation is infeasible because Moffett is not open for civilian aviation use. Finally, retention of all general REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSUBJE viii MARCH 1996 DR.a~I" EIR TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 13vIPACTS IMPACT CATEGORY Redevelopment Impacts Industrial/Park Residential Commercial Direct/Short-Tern Closure Impacts Land Use Air Transportation 7"* Roadway Intersections ,/ Traffic in Residential Areas Noise "’d",/ Safety "vegetation and Wildlife Business Displacement Air Quality Cultural Resources Hazardous Materials Geology Hydrology Jobs/Housing Balance Water Service Sanitary Sewer Service v",/,/,/ Gas & Electric Service Schools Parks Electromagnetic Field Hazard ,/ "visual/Aesthetics Cumulative Growth-Inducement B = Beneficial NS = Nonsignificant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable *This impact is significant individually and cumulatively. No checkmark for a given impact category indicates no impact. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE ix MARCH 1996 D1L~’-’T EIR aviation facilities at SJC would mitigate the cumulative impact, but not the impact due to closure of RHV. In addition, retention of all general aviation facilities at SJC would not allow SJC to accommodate current and future demand for commercial air carrier services. (’Nonsignificant Impact.with Mitigation, but Mitigation Itseff would Result in Additional Significant Impacts) C.~vlPACTS ON ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS Closure Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Mitigation Closing R.hW will, in the short-term, have little impact on nearby intersections because RHV is a relatively small generator of traffic. Specifically, closure of RHV will eliminate between 92 and I30 PM peak-hour traffic trips, with the exact number dependant upon which SJC master plan alternative is approved. (Beneficial Impact) Redeveloping the property with a park will have a negligible impact on nearby intersections because a park, like the airport, is a relatively small generator of peak- hour traffic. In fact, a passive-use park would actually generate fewer traffic trips than does the airport. (Beneficial Impact) Redeveloping the property with residential uses will have a significant impact at 7 of the 20 study intersections during the PM peak-hour. Dally traffic volumes associated with residential uses on the property would be over 15 times greater than keeping the airport open, even assuming the maximum downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC. (Significant Impact) Redeveloping the property with industrial!cornmercial uses will have a significant impact at 8 of the 20 study intersections during the PM peak-hour. Daily traffic volumes associated with industrial!comrnercial uses on the property would be almost 25 times greater than keeping the airport open, even assuming the maximum downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC. (Significant Impact) The mitigation for the impacts at up to eight intersections would consist of adding taming lanes anff’or through lanes to the intersections, as described in the EIR text. However, almost all of t_he required intersection improvements would require additional right-of-way which, in turn, - would likely affect existing businesses or residences. Thus, while these measures are f~asible from an engineering perspective, the measures themselves would create additional impacts which would need to be rnitigated. ~,, onsignificant Impact with Mitigation, but Mitigation Itseff world Result in Additional Significant Impacts) D. IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC THROUGH RESIDENTL&L AREAS Closure Closing RI-Fv" will, in the short-term, have little impact on traffic in residential areas Impacts because PJ-P~ is a relatively small generator of traffic. Specifically, closure of RHV REID-HILLVIEW A.IRPORT CLOSURE x MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Redevelopment Impacts Mitigation will eliminate between 92 and 130 PM peak-hour traffic trips, a small number of which may currently use nearby residential streets. (Beneficial Impact) Redeveloping the property with a park will have a negligible impact on traffic in residential areas because a park, like the airport, is a relatively small generator of peak-hour traffic. In fact, a passive-use park would actually generate fewer traffic trips than does the airport. (Beneficial Impact) The residential redevelopment scenario would significantly increase traffic on Cunningham Avenue and Waverly Avenue in existing residential neighborhoods. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) The industrial/commercial scenario would significantly increase traffic on Ocala Avenue in existing residential neighborhoods. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) There are no measures available which could reasonably mitigate this impact to a less- than-significant level. E. NOISE IMPACTS Closure Impacts Closure of Rr.~ would eliminate a substantial existing source of noise in the project area. Specifically, the noise produced by aircraft landing at and taking off from RHV would be eliminated. Since aircraft noise presently affects existing land uses in the area, its elimination would reduce overall noise levels. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Because much of the Reid-Hillview property is exposed to noise levels well above 60 dB from traffic on Capitol Expressway and Tully Road, development of a park on those portions of the property would be inconsistent with San Jose’s noise policies. (Significant Impact) Because much of the Reid-Hillview property is exposed to noise levels well above 60 dB from traffic on Capitol Expressway and Tully Road, development of residences on those portions of the property would be inconsistent with San Jose’s noise policies. (Significant Impact) The development of industrial/commercial uses on the RHV property would be consistent with San Jose’s noise policies. (Nonsignificant Impact) Traffic generated by any of the three redevelopment scenarios would not cause significant increases in noise levels in areas where there are noise-sensitive uses such as residences and schools. (Nonsignificant Impact) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xi MARCH 1996 DRAb’T EIR Mitigation Under the residential and park redevelopment scenarios, mitigation would consist of the construction of soundwalls along Capitol Expressway and Tully Road. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) F. SAFETY IMPACTS Closure Impacts If RHV. is closed, the riskof injury or death due to a_general..aviation.accident in the vicinity of the airport would be lower than if the airport was to remain open. [Note: The risk would not be zero, however, because some portions of the RHV area are within the airport traffic area for SJC.] This would be a beneficial impact for the Reid-Hillview area. However, this benefit would be offset by increased risks in the vicinity of those airports to which the planes from RHV would be relocated. (Nonsignificant Impact) Redevelopment Impacts SRI International calculated the number of traffic accidents and injuries which would be expected if the airport were to be closed and redeveloped, and compared those numbers to those associated with leaving the airport open. Since redevelopment of the airport property with a park would generate roughly as many vehicle trips as does the airport, there would essentially be no difference in the projected number of accidents between these two scenarios. (Nonsignificant Impact) Redevelopment of the airport property with residential uses would result in more traffic and, therefore, would result in 14 additional traffic accidents each year (6 of which would involve injuries) at 20 study intersections, as compared to those which would occur if the airport remained open. Redevelopment of the airport property with industriaL~cormnercial uses would result in 26 additional traffic accidents each year (11 of which would involve injuries) at 20 study intersections, as compared to those which would occur if the airport remained open. SR.I calculated an 11- to 18-times greater likelihood of an automobile-related fatality at one of these 20 intersections from these two redevelopment scenarios, than of an on-the-ground fatality arising from a general aviation accident. (Nonsignificant Impact) G.VEGETATION ?,AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS Closure Impacts In t-he short-term, closure of Pal-IV would not have any impacts on vegetation and wildlife because no changes to the airport property would occur. (No Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Any redevelopment of the airport property would result in a sigrdficant vegetation and wildlife impact because individual Burrowing Owls (a Species of Special Concern) would be directly affected, and because up to _100 acres of optimum Burrowing Owl habitat would be lost. (Significant Impact) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Mitigation Any owls located on the site would not be mo or distur~-:d during the nesting season. Outside of the nesting season, mitigati~-. would consist of relocating the individual Burrowing Owls to a suitable site. Ivlitagadon for the loss of biologically- important habitat would involve the creation of replacement habitat and/or some action to permanently preserve similar habitat. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) H. BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS Closure Impacts The proposed closure of RHV will displace approximately 29 business tenants at the ah-port. This impact does not include the impact on an unknown number of businesses which are among the County’s 261 tenants who rent hangars, shelters, and/or tie-downs for their aircraft at I~J-IV. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) Mitigation Mitigation for the displacement of businesses by a project typically includes the payment of monies to the affected business owner to cover various relocation costs and, where applicable, the buyout of existing leases. This mitigation is included as a part of this proposed project. In many cases, businesses which are impacted by a given project are able to reopen at a new location. However, in this case, it is likely that many of the existing aviation-related businesses would likely go out of business if l~_r-IV is closed. The reason for this is that there is very limited space at other airports (most notably, South County and Palo Alto) where these businesses could reopen. Therefore, this business displacement impact would be sigr,Micant and unavoidable for this project. Redevelopment Impacts (No Impact) I.AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Closure Lmpacts Closure of the airport without any redevelopment would, in the short-term, be beneficial since it would eliminate the emissions which presently are associated with the operation of the airport. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment of the property with ~: ~ -?a’k would result in less emissions than under existing conditions. (Beneficial Impact) Compared to existing conditions, a significant increase in emissions would occur if the property was redeveloped with either residential or industrial/commercial uses. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) REID-HILLVIEW A_IRPORT CLOSURE xiii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Mitigation If the future redevelopment project applicant institutes a trip reduction program, emissions of pollutants would be reduced. However, with regard to emissions of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, it is doubtful that both of these pollutants could be reduced to less-than-significant levels given their projected magnitude, even with a trip reduction program. J.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Imoacts Any future redevelopment would be on a site where there is known contamination. Further, although it is not knov~n whether any of the nine existing underground fuel storage tanks at RHV are lealdng, such a possibility is considered likely because leakage associated with older, single-walled tanks is common. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Prior to any redevelopment of the site, ongoing remediation should continue until levels of groundwater contamination fall to levels which are acceptable under regulatory standards. Prior to any redevelopment of the site, the nine existing fuel tanks should be rernoved and testing for soil and/or groundwater contamination should occur. If contan-,.ination is found, remediation should occur until cleanup has achieved satisfactory results. (Nonsignificant Impact with MAtigati0n) K.GEOLOGIC II’v~ACTS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment with a park would have no geologic impacts since no structures or buildings of note would be constructed under that scenario. (No Impact) Under the residential or industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios, there are no onsite geologic conditions present which cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques. (-Nonsignificant Impact) L. HYDROLOGIC 12~ACTS Closure (No Impact) Impacts REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xiv MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment of the site with a park would result in a lesser volume of storrnwater runoff, as compared to existing conditions, because less of the site would be paved and/or covered by buildings. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment of the site with industrial/commercial or residential uses would increase the volume of stormwater runoff, as compared to existing conditions, because more of the site would be paved and/or covered with buildings. Since downstream flood control facilities are operating at or near capacity, this increased runoff could cause flooding. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Construction of onsite stormwater detention facilities would likely be required under the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios. These facilities would retain stormwater runoff on the site until after peak storm flows have subsided in the downstream flood control system. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) M.IMPACTS ON SAN JOSE’S JOBS,q=IOUSING BALANCE Closure Impacts The closure of RHV would directly eliminate 101 jobs within San Jose, which would have the effect of slightly worsening San Jose’s projected shortage of jobs in relationship to the housing supply in year 2000. (Nonsignificant Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Assuming that six persons were to be employed at the par.g, t.here would be a net loss of approximately 95 jobs, as compared to leaving I~J-IV open. This net loss of 95 jobs would have the effect of slightly worsening San Jose’s projected shortage of jobs in relationship to the supply of housing in year 2000. (Nonsignificant Impact) The projected population under the residential redevelopment scenario would be 7,136 persons, which is roughly equivalent to the population of Los Altos Hills, or just less than twice the population of Monte Sereno. The residential scenario would also substantially worsen San Jose’s projected shortage of jobs in relationship to the supply of housing in year 20043. This imbalance would be further worsened by the residential scenario because of the loss of the 101 jobs which presently exist on the airport property. (Significant Unavoidable Lmpact) The industrial/commercial redevelopment scenario would generate 5,827 onsite employees. This would result in a net increase of 5,726 employees, as compared to leaving R.HV open. The creation of these jobs on the airport site would substantially lessen San Jose’s jobs/housing imbalance. (Beneficial Impact) Mitigation The only mitigation for this impact under the residential scenario would be to find other sites in the City where additional jobs (beyond that already identified in the General Plan) could be located. This is not considered practical because the City has already completed such a task as a part of its recent General Plan update process. REID-HILLVIEW AJRPORT CLOSURE xv MARCH 1996 DP~.VI? EIR N.IMPACTS ON WATER SERVICE Closure Impacts Closure of RHV would result in a decrease in the amount of water used on the site, as compared to existing conditions. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment of the property with any of the three potential uses would likely not require substantial improvements to the area’s water supply system. This conclusion would need to be verified at the time a development application is received, based upon required firefighting water flows. (Nonsignificant Impact) Closure Impacts IMPACTS ON SANITARY SEWER SERVICE Redevelopment Impacts Mitigation Closure of RhrV would result in a decrease in the amount of sewage generated on the site, as compared to existing conditions. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment of the RHV property as a park would not likely generate notably more sewage than does the airport. (Nonsignificant Impact) Construction of either the residential scenario or industrial/commercial scenario would be a substantially more intense use of the site, with regard to the generation of effluent. It is likely that this increase in intensity would require offsite improvements to the sanitary sewer system. (Significant Impact) Mitigation would consist of the upgrade of offsite line(s) or the installation of a new line to handle the projected sewage flow. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) P.I]?v~ACTS ON GAS AND ELECTRIC SERVICES Closure Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Closure of Pal-PC would result in a decrease in the amount of gas and electricity used on the site, as compared to existing conditions. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment of the property with any of the three potential uses would likely not require substantial improvements to the area’s gas and electric supply system. This conclusion would need to be verified at the time a development application is received, based upon a specific site plan. (Nonsignificant Impact) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xvi MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Q.IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment wifirt a park.or induslrial/commercial uses would have no impacts on schools. (No Impac0 Redevelopment of the property with residential uses would have a substantial effect upon both elementary and high school districts. The residential scenario would generate a total of approximately 1,854 students. Given the existing levels of enrollment in the three affected school districts, which are at or above capacity, these additional students would result in substantial overcrowding in the system. The degree of overcrowding will likely directly lead to the construction of a new elementary school. The construction of a schoo! would be a physical change to the environment with its own set of environmental impacts. (Significant Lmpact) Mitigation The impact could be mitigated by the payment of a school impact fee. Using the methodology described in the EIR text, the payment for this scenario would be approximately $6.2 million. Another way for this impact to be mitigated would be for the project to include a school as a part of the overall project plan. In any case, whether a future project includes a school within the project, or whether an impact fee is paid to the school district and the district builds the school, a new school at some location would be required. (Nonsignificant Impact with 1Vfitigation) R. LMPACTS ON PARKS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts Redevelopment of the site as a park would add a new recreational facility to the area’s existing park system. (Beneficial Impact) Redevelopment of the site with industrial!commercial uses would have no impacts on parks. (No Impact) Under the residential redevelopment scenario, there would be a need for a new __.25- acre park, based upon San Jose’s General Plan goal. The construction of a park would be a physical change to the enviror,anent with its own set of environmental impacts. (Significant Impact) Mitigation The mitigation for this impact would be to include a park on the site as a part of the overall residential plan for the site. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xvii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR S.HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS Closure (No Impact) Impacts -Redevelopment Impa,¢ts Redevelopment with a park would not expose people to elevated EMF levels for extended periods of time. (Nonsignificant Impac0 Under the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios, it is likely that residences or workplaces would be located within the easterly portion of t_he property which is exposed to elevated EMF levels from the PG&E electric transmission lines. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Mitigation would consist of designing the project so that inhabited structures are located outside of the zone exposed to elevated EMF levels, based upon onsite EMF measurements by qualified personnel. (Nonsigp.ificant Impact with Mitigation) T.VISUAL/AESTHETIC IMPACTS Closure (No Impact) Lmpacts Redevelopment Impacts Redeve!opment of the site as a park would constitute a visual and aesthetic amenity in the area. (Beneficial Impact) The redevelopment of the Pd-Pv" property with either industrial!cornmercial or residential uses would be a more intense use of the property than is the airport. Assuming that the taller buildings of those scenarios would be located on areas of the site not adjacent to the existing single-family neighborhoods, those buildings would not create a significant visual impact upon those existing neighborhoods. (Nonsignificant Impact) U.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Closure Impacts There is one significant cumulative impact associated with the proposed closure of I~2qV. Ttaat impact is the effect on air transportation, as described previously in this Surmrnavy on page viii. Redevelopment Lmpacts (No Impact) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xviii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR V.GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Closure (No Impact) Impacts Redevelopment Impacts None of the redevelopment scenarios would have substantial growth-inducing impacts because the site is located in a developed area. ,although such ir~ll redevelopment would have significant impacts, as described in this EIR, the redevelopment would not lead to substantial additional growth. The only additional growth would potentially be some minor infill development to serve the land uses on the FJ-P,¢ site. However, even that secondary growth would not be substantial because the area is already served by numerous services. (Nonsignificant Impact) W. EFFECTS ON URBAN SERVICES Table S-2 summarizes the effects of the project upon existing urban services in the RHV area. These effects are not environmental impacts, as defined by CEQA, but the information is provided here because it may be useful in the decision-making process for this project. The reader is referred to pages 82-85 of the EIP, text for a discussion of these issues. TABLE S-2 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON URBAN SERVICES Direct/Short-Term Closure Effects Redevelopment Effects Park Residential Industrial/ Commercial Police Services Fire Services Library Services " B = Beneficial NS = Not Substantial S = Substantial No checkmark for a given category indicates no effect. REID-H]LLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xix M~,_RCH 1996 DRAFT EIR SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives to the project, plus the no project alternative, were evaluated in Section IV of the EIR. These alternatives would, to varying degrees, partially or fully achieve the objective of the project, which- is defined as removing an incompatible land use from the area. However, unlike the project which achieves this objective by closing RHV, these alternatives keep RhW open and, instead, remove some or all of the incompatible land uses around the airport. The alternatives evaluated are as follows: No Project Keep RHV Open and Retain Existing Surrounding Land Uses Alternative A Remove A J1 Incompatible Land Uses Within All Safety Zones and Within the 65 dB CNEL Contour Alternative B Remove All Incompatible Land Uses Within FAA Safety Zones and ALUC Inner Safety Zone Alternative C Remove All Incompatible Land Uses Within FAA Safety Zones Only Alternative D Move the Airfield 500’ to the North and Acquire Hillview Park Each of these alternatives would avoid the significant impacts of the proposed project, all of which were summarized on the previous pages. However, all of these alternatives, except the no project alternative, would require the displacement of existing businesses, residences, and/or institutional uses. Alternatives A and B would require major displacements, while Alternatives C and D would require displacements to a much smaller degree. Displacements of businesses, residences, and institutional uses would constipate significant environmental impacts. Table S-3 summarizes the pros and cons of these alternatives. IDENTIFICATION OF THE E1Wvql~ONT’dENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Of all the alternatives, including the proposed project and the No Project Alternative, Alternative C would be the environmentally superior alternative for the following reasons: 1) it avoids all of the significant impacts of the proposed project and the future redevelopment of the site, 2) it avoids the major displacernent of residences, businesses, and public facilities of Alternatives A and B, 3) it avoids the increased land use compatibility impacts north of the airport of Alternative D, 4) it has minimal short-term and long-term environmental impact, and 5) by removing facilities from the FAA safety zones at the south end of the airport, it would reduce the likely severity of an accident occurring in the safety zones when compared to existing conditions. This last reason is supported by historical accident data at RHV which show a number of accidents occurring just short of the runways (i.e., in the Eastridge parking lot and at Tully Road). REID-H]LLVIEW ,MN_PORT CLOSURE xx 1V~kRCH 1996 DRAFT EIR < AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The proposed project is highly controversial in Santa Clara County. The controversy stems from the fact that RHV is surrounded by land uses which are not.compatible with an airport, such land Uses having been built many years after the airport was opened. In fact, it is likely that many of these surrounding land uses would not have been built had the plans and policies which are in place today been in place at the time those uses were approved. Many persons residing in the neighborhoods around R.hW are bothered by the noise from the aircraft and are fearful of harm from a potential plane crash. Although no one on the ground has ever been injured or killed due to an aircraft accident in the 57-year history of Rt-P¢, t_he accidents which have occurred have served to bolster these fears. Further, although studies and statistics show that RHV is a safe facility (its accident rate is about half the national average), and that the risk from non-aviation accidents is much greater than from aviation accidents, the fears of the community have not been allayed. The value of P J-IV to the community as a whole is another facet of the controversy surrounding the proposed project. Various federal, state, regional, and local plans recognize the importance of both commercial and general aviation airports to the community. P, J4V is Santa Clara County’s largest general aviation facility. The County’s second largest general aviation facility, San Jose International ~xZ,-port (SJC), is in the process of updating its Master Plan. All of the SJC Master Plan alternatives (except "no project") would downsize SJC’s general aviation facilities to make room for the substantial growth of air carrier and air cargo operations. Assuming RHV were to remain open, most of the aircraft from SJC would be relocated to RHV since RHV is a designated reliever airport for SJC. If R~r were to be closed, *there would be a significant shortage of general aviation facilities in the County, assuming SJC downsizes its facilities. The prospect of this scenario becoming a reality has greatly alarmed businesses which depend upon (directly or indirectly) general aviation facilities, as well as various aviation-related organizations. The closure of RHV is opposed by the Reid-Hillview Airport Association, the Coalition for Responsible Airport Management and Policy (CR~2vfl:’), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the San Jose Chamber of Cormn-~erce, and the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group. On February 20, 1996, the San Jose City Council, reversing a 1990 position, declared its support for RHV as "an irreplaceable asset to the public transportation system of the County of Santa Clara." The controversy surrounding RHV is heightened by the fact that there are few other locations in Santa Clara County which have been found to be suitable as a potential replacrment for RHV. The only potential sites are located in the South County area, and each of those sites would have its own set of environmental constraints and issues. Further, past ideas for expansion of either Palo Alto Airport or South County .AArport have been dropped for environmental reasons and due to coro_munity concerns. Finally, this project is controversial because the closure of RHV is opposed by the FAA. The FAA has indicated to the County that legal action may be forthcoming if the County attempts to close the airport prior to the year 2008. It is the position of the FAA that RHV cannot be closed prior to 2008 because of conditions the County agreed to when it accepted grant monies from the FAA. The legal opinion of the County Counsel’s office is that the County is not obligated to keep the airport open. REID-HILLVIEW ,~JRPORT CLOSURE xxii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR The primary short-term issue to be resolved is whether or not to close RHY. If RHV is closed, the long- term issue to be resolved will be what to do with the 180 acres of land now occupied by the airport. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS .Although not a part of the EIR, Attachinent A presents information on economic considerations related to the proposed project. The fn-st part of Attachment A presents the findings of a report which quantifies the economic impact of RHV on the economy. The second part of Attachment A provides information as to the appraised value of the RHV property and costs which would be incurred by the County in closing RHV. The economic impact report found that there are 101 jobs wifi~n 29 businesses at RHV. These businesses and employees generate revenue, generate induced employment through the purchase of goods and services, and generate tax revenue for governments. Out-of-town visitors arriving in the area on l~d-IV aircraft also generate both employment and revenue due to their use of local visitor-related services (e.g., hotels, restaurants, etc.). Finally, roughly 50 businesses in the area have their business aircraft based at RI-Pv’, such aircraft being used in various aspects of the business. These 50 businesses also create employment and revenue in the economy. In 1995, it is estimated that $10.7 million in direct business revenue was generated by RHV. Revenue generated by businesses with aircraft based at RH-V is estimated at $21 million, $7.4 million of which was related to the use of RI-P¢. A total of 372 jobs in the local economy is either directly or indirectly related to RHV. The appraisal of the RH’v" property found that the land would be valued at roughly $49.5 million under the residential redevelopment scenario, and roughly $33 million under the industrial/commercial redevelopment scenario. No value was appraised for the park scenario because it is assumed that the land would rernain in public ownership. Costs to the County associated with the closure of the airport (including buyout of business leases), site demolition, redevelopment infrastructure improvements, and cleanup of contamination ranged from a low of $23.1 million for the park redevelopment scenario, to a high of $28.1 rnillion for the industrial/colvmaercial redevelopment scenario. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE xxiii MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR I.DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT A.PROJECT LOCATION Reid-Hillview Airport (RHV) is located on a site, approximately 180 acres in size, in the easterly portion of the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. The airport is generally bounded by Capitol Expressway on the east, Tully Road on the south, residential uses on the west, and Ocala Avenue on the north. RHV’s location is shown on Figures 1 and 2 on the following pages. Figure 3 on page 4 is an aerial photograph of Reid-Hillview. B.PROJECT BACKGROUND On June 12, 1990, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors declared their intent to close RHV, and directed County staff to prepare the documents necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to making a final decision. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed closure of RHV are the subject of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and, in order to give the reader background information as to the history of this project, the following discussion is provided. RHV is one of three general aviation~ airports in Santa Clara County which are operated by the Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department. The other two airports are Palo Alto and South County. General aviation facilities are also provided in Santa Clara County at San Jose International Airport (SJC), which is owned and operated by the City of San Jose.2 RHV was originally constructed as a privately-owned, public use facility in 1939. The airport was purchased by the County of Santa Clara in December of 1961. Federal grant monies from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the amount of $1,172,0963 were used toward the total purchase of the land for RHV. In October of 1967, the FAA opened an air traffic control tower at RHV. The development and operation of RHV, as well as Palo Alto and South County Airports, is guided by the Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan. The original Airports Master Plan was adopted in 1966, and an updated Airports Master Plan was subsequently adopted in 1982. The Airports Master ~"General aviation" is the term applied to those aviation activities and facilities which are not commercial or military in nature. Typically, general aviation aircraft are much smaller than those used by the airlines, and can be powered by piston-driven or jet engines. [-Note: Aircraft which weigh more than 12,500 pounds (maximum gross take-off weight) are not allowed at Reid-Hillview.] General aviation can be business-related or recreation-related in nature. -~The other airport in Santa Clara County is Moffett Federal Airfield (formerly Moffett Field Naval Air Station) which is operated by NASA. Moffett is not open to use for civilian aviation purposes. 3Source: Memorandum dated 3/31/86 to Board of Supervisors from Office of the County Counsel. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 1 MARCH 1996 DRAF@ EIR SAN JOSE 1" = +_. 2.3 miles Base Map Source: CSAA, 1991 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 REiD La~e Cunni~gham Eastridge Mall OR VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 4 Date(s) 1939 1961 1962 1963 1963 1963-1971 1965 1966 1967 1971 1973 1976 1982 1986 1986 1987 1990 1990 1990 1991 1992 t993 1964-1994 Sources: TABLE 1 CHRONOLOGY OF SELECTED EVENTS RELATED TO REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT Description of Event Reid-Hillview Airport opens as a privately-owned, public use facility Santa Clara County purchases Reid-Hillview Fischer Junior High School is built (northwest of airport) Cassell Elementary School is built (north of airport) Meyer Elementary School is built (adjacent to airport) Residential neighborhoods north of airport are constructed Hillview Branch Library constructed in Hillview Park (north of airport) County Airports Master Plan is adopted by Santa Clara County FAA opens air tra;fic control tower at Reid-Hillview Eastridge Shopping Center (south of airport) opens First Airports Land Use Plan is adopted by Santa Clara County Airports Land Use Commission (ALUC) Community Center constructed in Hillview Park (north of airport) Updated County Airports Master Plan is adopted by Santa Clara County Reid-Hillview Safety Analysis (MAG Consultants) Study on effects of closing/relocating Reid-Hillview on San Jose Int’l Airport Study on relocating Reid-Hillview without impairing airspace safety Board of Supervisors declares their intent to close Reid-Hillview Reid-Hillview Land Use Safety Compatibility Study completed for ALUC Santa Clara Co. General Aviation Reliever Airport Site Selection Study; Phase 1 Santa Clara Co. General Aviation Reliever Airport Site Selection Study; Phase 2 ALUC adopts updated Land Use Plan for Santa Clara County airports Reid-Hillview Risk Assessment Report completed 112 aviation-related accidents (72 accidents occurred on the airport property and 40 accidents occurred off the airport property) Transportation Agency files, County Assessor’s records, San Jose Library, Alum Rock School District, City of San Jose, FAA, Eastridge Shopping Center. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 5 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Plan states that the capacity of RHV is 900 based aircraft (its current capacity) and 400,000 annual operations.4 MTC’s Regional Airport System Plan for the Bay Area identifies 23 airports which serve general aviation. Based upon 1990 data, Reid-Hillview was the Bay Area’s 7th busiest general aviation airport.5 RHV is also a designated reliever airport for San Jose International.6 Aircraft activity levels have fluctuated over the years at RHV. The busiest year in the airport’s history was in 1978, when there were over 398,000 operations. In recent years, the activity levels have been dropping, primarily due to economic factors. In 1994, there were 525 based aircraft and 167,480 annual operations at RHV. When Reid-Hillview opened in 1939, there were few land uses - other than agriculture - in the vicinity of the airport. However, in the ensuing years, various land use decisions were made by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the San Jose City Council which led to the urbanization of the area. At present, there are numerous residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational land uses in the immediate vicinity of RHV, many of which are in the airport’s designated safety zones. As an example, there are over 500 residences and several schools located in the Airport Land Use Commission’s safety zone north of the airport, and there is a major regional shopping center located in the Airport Land Use Commission’s safety zone south of the airport, [Note: See subsequent sections in this EIR for in-depth discussions of land use compatibility.] In the years since RHV has been in operation, there have been over 100 aviation-related accidents on the airport property and in the vicinity of the airport. Although there have been a number of fatalities and injuries associated with these accidents, none have been to persons on the ground (i.e., all injuries involved person(s) onboard the aircraft). These accidents have generated substantial concern in parts of the community with regard to the issue of safety and, specifically, concerns have centered around fears that an aviation-related accident could injure or kill persons on the ground in one of the surrounding neighborhoods, schools, parks, or shopping areas. These safety-related concerns and the accompanying widespread publicity surrounding various aviation accidents, led to the preparation of a number of studies by Santa Clara County to explore potential solutions to address these concerns. These studies have included both safety reports associated with keeping Reid-Hillview open, as well as reports associated with the feasibility of closing Reid-Hillview and constructing a replacement airport elsewhere. The issue of Reid-Hillview has also been the subject of many public hearings and debates before the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. On June 12, 1990, after substantial public testimony on both sides of the airport 4An "operation" is defined as a takeoff or landing. If, for example, a plane takes off and then returns for a landing, two operations will have occurred. 5Source: "Regional Airport System Plan Update", Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1994. 6The term "reliever airport" refers to an airport’s role in relationship to another nearby airport. In this case, since SJC is the airport which accommodates commercial aviation (i.e., airlines, commuter airlines, and air cargo), areawide demand for general aviation facilities that cannot be met at SJC is accommodated or "relieved" at RHV. This concept is important in the context of SJC’s current proposal to downsize their general aviation facilities; see subsequent discussions for further details. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 6 MARCH !996 DRAFT EIR closure issue, the Board of Supervisors voted (3-2) to declare their intent to close Reid-Hillview and directed staff to prepare the necessary environmental documentation. Since the 1990 vote, two studies have been completed, both of which are extensively referenced throughout this EIR. The two studies are as follows: Final Technical Report on Aviation and Transportation Data for the Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Evaluation Project, Aries Consultants, November 1993 Risk Assessment of the Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Evaluation Project, SRI International, November 1993 C.PRO~CT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the closure of Reid-Hiilview Airport. The project does not include the development of any replacement land uses ori the airport site - assuming the airport is closed - since no replacement land uses have been decided upon or put forth. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that the airport property will be redeveloped in the future if the airport is closed. Therefore, in keeping with the CEQA requirement that an EIR evaluate "the whole of an action", this EIR discusses the environmental impacts of three possible replacement land use scenarios. These three scenarios, which were jointly developed by Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose, are as follows: o o o Park Use Industrial/Commercial Use Residential Use An overview of these three redevelopment land use scenarios is provided below. The reader should note that these scenarios are highly conceptual in nature and that there are numerous designs which could be put forth under these, or any other land use scenario(s). The residential and industrial/commercial scenarios also assume development intensities which maximize the site’s potential; actual development could be less intense. Again, these scenarios are presented solely to provide the public and governmental decisionmakers with the likely effects of the closure of RHV and the redevelopment of the 180-acre airport site. 1.Redevelopment as Public Park Under this scenario, the airport property would be redeveloped as a public park, presumably under the ownership and operation of either Santa Clara County or the City of San Jose. The park scenario assumes "passive uses" such as picnicking, walking, and jogging. It does not include "active use" facilities such as tennis courts, baseball fields, swimming pools, etc. Vehicular access to the park would be from Cunningham Avenue and from Ocala Avenue. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 7 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 2.Redevelopment with Residential Uses Under this scenario, the airport property would be redeveloped with residential land uses. The assumed densities for this scenario are shown in Table 2, and a possible layout is shown on Figure 4. These assumed densities would yield approximately 2,280 dwelling units on the airport site. Typical medium and medium high density residential development would be either 1 to 2-story single-family residences on small lots or 2-story townhouses. Typical high density residential development would be 2-story units with parking in carports or garages. Typical very high density residential development would be 3 to 4-story condominiums or apartments built over parking. Access to the residential development is assumed to be from several locations, including Tully Road, Cunningham Avenue, Ocala Avenue, and Wavefly Avenue, as shown on Figure 4. This scenario assumes that Cunningham Avenue is extended through the site. TABLE 2 RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Designation Density # of Acres # of Units Medium 9 du/acre 80 720 Medium High 12 du/acre 30 360 High 18 du/acre 30 540 Very High 33 du/acre 20 660 Total:2,280 du = dwelling unit 3.Redevelopment with Industrial/Commercial Uses Under this scenario, the airport property would be redeveloped with industrial and commercial land uses. The assumed densities for this scenario are shown in Table 3, and a possible layout is shown on Figure 5. These assumed densities would yield approximately 2.4 million square feet of industrial/commercial uses. Typical neighborhood commercial and community shopping development would result in 1-story buildings with adjacent parking. Typical light industrial or industrial park development at the assumed density would result in 1 to 2-story buildings on the site. Access to the industrial and commercial development is assumed to be from Tully Road, Cunningham Avenue, and Ocala Avenue (see Figure 5). REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 8 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR CUNNINGHAM AIE.1 WAVERLY AVE. Medium High Density Residential Medium Densibj High Density Very High Density ¯Possible Access¯Points ALFRED WY. OCALA AVE. EASTRIDGE SHOPPING CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND ACCESS FOR RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO FIGURE 4 CUNNINGHAM AVE.1 WAVERLY AVE. Neighborhood Retail Community Retail Industrial Possible Access Points ALFRED WY. OCALA AVE. ~mmmIIImmmmmmmmmmmmmImmn~ mmlmnmnmmimmmmmnnmn TULLY I ROAD EASTRIDGE SHOPPING CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND ACCESS FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO FIGURE 5 10 TABLE 3 INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Designation Density # of Acres Square Ft. Neighborhood Commercial 0.25 FAR 5 54,450 Community Shopping 0.25 FAR 10 108,900 Light Industrial, Industrial Park 0.35 FAR 145 2,210,670 Total:2,374,020 FAR’= floor area ratio It is important to note that, although this EIR generally addresses the impacts of these three possible replacement land uses scenarios, the EIR does not provide the environmental clearance for any future use of the Reid-Hillview site. Any future land use will require its own separate environmental review, as required by CEQA. 4.Project Scheduling A final decision on whether or not to close RHV will be made by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors after certification of this EIR. That decision will likely be made sometime in mid-1996. If the final decision is to close the airport, it would be the intent of the County to begin the various steps necessary to close RHV, including notification to the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics (see Uses of the EIR, below), buyout of existing leases, etc. Depending upon various scheduling factors, operations at RHV could cease within the next couple of years. Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, it is important to note that the FAA is on record with its position that the County cannot close RHV prior to year 2008 because of commitments made by the County when it accepted grant monies from the FAA in 1988. The Regional Counsel of the FAA has indicated that the County would be "in breach" of the grant agreements and that it would be "in court" if the County closes the airport prior to 2008. The County Counsel’s office has issued an opinion which disagrees with that of the FAA. The dispute between the County and the FAA may have to be resolved through litigation. [Note: Although these are legal issues (as opposed to environmental issues), this information is provided here to give the reader a sense of what may occur from a scheduling perspective if a decision is made to close RHV.] REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 11 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR D.PROJECT OBJECTIVE The objective of the proposed project is to remove an incompatible land use. [Note: The reader is referred to Section III., A., Land Use, for a discussion of land use compatibility. The reader is also referred to Section IV., Alternatives to the Proposed Project, for a discussion of alternatives to the proposed project which would fully or partially achieve the project objective. E.USES OF THE EIR The primary purpose of this EIR is to provide the public and decisionmakers with objective information as to the environmental impacts which would occur if Reid-Hillview Airport were to be closed. As noted earlier, this EIR also provides information as to the probable impacts which would occur if redevelopment on the airport property occurs, assuming RHV is closed. Since Reid-Hillview is owned and operated by Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will use the information in this EIR when making a final decision on whether or not to close RHV. No other governmental approvals or permits are needed to close the airport. If the Board of Supervisors votes to close RHV, State Aeronautics Law (Section 21605) requires Santa Clara County to notify the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics, 60 days in advance of the intended closing. Caltrans may hold a public hearing after receiving such notice, but Caltrans does not have approval authority over the airport closure. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 12 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR II. PROJECT CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS AND POLICIES A.NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS (NPIAS) The NPIAS is updated every two years by the FAA for the purpose of reporting to Congress on the status of the nation" s air system, and the ability of that system to meet demand. The NPIAS includes sections on system demand and on those facilities which will meet that demand. For the Bay Area, RHV is included in the NPIAS as an airport which accommodates existing and future general aviation demand] The closure of RHV without the construction of a replacement airport would, in combination with the planned downsizing of general aviation facilities at San Jose International Airport, cause a regional shortage of general aviation facilities. [Note: See Section I11., B., Air Transportation, for a detailed discussion of impacts on air transportation.] Therefore, the proposed project would be inconsistent with the NPIAS because it would result in insufficient facilities to accommodate the area’s demand for general aviation transportation. B.CALIFORNIA AIR SYSTEM PLAN The California Air System Plan (CASP) is prepared and updated by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for the purpose of developing and maintaining a system of airports to meet aviation demand in California. The CASP includes an inventory of facilities in the aviation system, as well as various policies for meeting demand. One CASP policy which is relevant to RHV states that the State should promote the utilization of existing facilities to meet demand. Another policy states that an aviation system should be maintained which meets demand, emphasizing general aviation airports and the important role which aviation plays in transportation.8 The closure of RHV without the construction of a replacement airport would, in combination with the planned downsizing of general aviation facilities at San Jose International Airport, cause a regional shortage of general aviation facilities. [Note: See Section III., B., Air Transportation, for a detailed discussion of impacts on air transportation.] Therefore, the proposed project would be inconsistent with the CASP because it would result in insufficient facilities to accommodate the area’s demand for general aviation transportation. C. REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN In 1994, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted an update to the Regional Airport System Plan. The purpose of the Regional Air System Plan is to guide the development of the Bay Area’s airport system in order to safely, equitably, and efficiently meet the region’s demand for air transportation. The Plan addresses both commercial and general aviation. Page 1-14 of the Plan states that "Reid-Hillview should be retained as part of the South Bay general aviation system in that it serves a large population of users and provides relief to San Jose Airport; alternatively, a replacement facility with comparable capabilities and more compatible land use could be developed 7Source: Joseph Rodriguez, FAA, personal communication, 12/4/95. ~Source: Pat Mickelson, Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics, personal communication, 12/5/95. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 13 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR at another location in Santa Clara County." The proposed project would be inconsistent with the Regional Airport System Plan since it would not retain RHV, and it does not propose to construct a replacement airport. D.SANTA CLARA COUNTY AIRPORTS LAND USE PLAN The Santa Clara County Airports Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted a Land Use Plan for those areas in the vicinity of Reid-Hillview, San Jose, Palo Alto, and South County Airports. Since the ALUC’s Land Use Plan regulates only future land uses in the vicinity of these airports, it is not directly applicable to the proposed project. [Note: See Section III., A., Land Use, for a discussion of land use compatibility.] E. SANTA CLARA COUNTY AIRPORTS MASTER PLAN An update to the 1966 Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1982. The purpose of the Airports Master Plan is to guide the development of the County’s three general aviation airports, in order to meet the area’s demand for general aviation facilities. The Plan designates RHV as the largest of the three general aviation airports. The Plan states that RHV would meet 50% of the County system’s general aviation demand in terms of the number of based aircraft. The proposed project would be inconsistent with the Airports Master Plan because it would close Reid-Hillview and it would not construct a replacement facility elsewhere. F.SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN The Santa Clara County General Plan was updated in 1994. The chapter on transportation contains numerous statements and policies pertaining to Reid-Hillview. On page F-26 of the General Plan, there is an introductory/background paragraph which acknowledges the County’s intent to close RHV. However, subsequent to that paragraph is the following statement on page F-26: "It is important that the continued operation of all of Santa Clara County’s airports be supported and enhanced." The General Plan also contains the following policies related to the closure of RHV: Policy C-TR-38: Ensure adequate air carrier, air cargo and general aviation capacity so as to meet current and projected demand for these facilities thereby supporting the county’s economic development and goals. Encourage airport growth that is compatible with nearby existing established neighborhoods. Policy C-TR(i)-49 Encourage San Jose International Airport (SJC) to work with the three general aviation airports to ensure adequate future capacity within Santa Clara County to handle general aviation traffic displaced by the growth in air carrier or air cargo activity. These statements and policies indicate the intent of the General Plan that demand for general aviation be met, especially in the context of the proposed downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC. In this context, the closure of RHV would be inconsistent with the General Plan. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 14 MARCH I996 DRAFT EIR Notwithstanding the policy of accommodating general aviation demand, the General Plan also states that airport growth should be compatible with existing established neighborhoods. At RHV, an expansion of the airport facility would not be compatible with the existing neighborhoods. However, since neither the project (i.e., airport closure) nor the "no project" (i.e., airport stays open) propose to expand facilities at RHV, there would be no inconsistency with this aspect of the General Plan. G.SAN JOSE GENERAL PLAN RHV and its surrounding land uses are located in the City of San Jose. San Jose’s 2020 General Plan contains numerous policies pertaining to land use, transportation, community and economic development, and quality of life (e.g., noise, public safety, natural resources, etc.). The following discussion will focus on those issues in the General Plan which are directly related to the proposed closure of RHV and the potential redevelopment scenarios for the airport property. 1.Land Use Designation The RHV property is designated as "Public/Quasi-Public" on the General Nan’s Land Use/Transportation Diagram. The existing airport facility is compatible with this land use designation. Redeveloping the RHV property with park, residential, or industrial/commercial land uses would be inconsistent with the existing land use designation. The redevelopment of the airport property with any of these uses would require an amendment to the General Plan, as well as a change in zoning for the property. 2.Noise Policies The General Plan calls for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, libraries, and hospitals to have average9 exterior noise levels less than 60 decibels in the short-term, and less than 55 decibels in the long-term. Much of San Jose does not comply with these goals due to the proximity of these land uses to roadways, railroads, airports, commercial zones, and!or industrial areas. Nonetheless, when applications for new development are received, the City attempts to achieve these goals by siting these uses a suitable distance from noise sources and/or by requiting mitigation (e.g., soundwalls). Closure of RHV would be consistent with the noise policies of the San Jose General Plan because the closure of the airport would eliminate a substantial noise source in the RHV area. In order for the park and residential redevelopment scenarios to be consistent with the noise policies, soundwalls would be required along Capitol Expressway and Tully Road, and/or those uses would be required to be set back from these facilities. In addition, traffic generated by either the residential or the commercial/industrial redevelopment scenarios would, in turn, cause a noticeable rise in noise levels at some locations. See Section III., D., Noise, for details on noise impacts. U"Average" here refers to the day-night level, or Ldn. See Section III., D., Noise, for a discussion of the Ldn and other noise descriptors. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 15 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 3.Transportation Level of Service Policy The General Plan calls for a minimum level of service of "D" during peak travel periods on City streets. The proposed project would not violate this policy because, by closing the airport, traffic would be reduced in the short-term. The redevelopment of the RHV property as a park would also not violate this policy due to minimal traffic generation associated with this use. However, redevelopment of the RHV property with either residential or commercial/industrial uses would cause violations of this policy at a number of nearby intersections. [See Section III., C., Ground Transportation, for a detailed traffic impact analysis.] Compliance with this policy under the residential and/or commercial industrial scenarios would require substantial mitigation. 4.Sanitary Sewer Level of Service Policy The General Plan calls for a minimum level of service of "D" during peak flow conditions in sanitary sewer lines. In the short-term, the proposed project would not violate this policy because, by closing the airport, the volume of effluent would be reduced. The redevelopment of the RHV property as a park would also not violate this policy due to minimal sewage generation associated with this use. However, redevelopment of the RHV property with either residential or commercial/industrial uses would likely cause violations of this policy because those uses are substantially more intense than the existing airport, with regard to the generation of sewage. [See Section III., N., Utilities, for further discussion.] Compliance with this policy under the residential and/or commercial industrial scenarios would likely require offsite mitigation. 5.Species of Special Concern Policies The General Plan calls for the preservation of habitat suitable for Species of Special Concern.~° As discussed in Section III., F., Vegetation & Wildlife, the RHV property presently supports a number of burrowing owls (a Species of Special Concern), as well as provides excellent habitat for the owls. The proposed project would be consistent with the habitat preservation policies if the property were to be left undeveloped. However, any of the redevelopment scenarios being considered for the airport property would be inconsistent with these policies because it would result in the destruction and loss of the habitat. [Note: A park with paths, lawns, picnic areas, etc. would not colastitute good burrowing owl habitat.] 6.Community Development Policies The General Plan states that "residential neighborhoods should be protected from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses which may have a negative impact on ~°Species of Special Concern are those plant and animal species which are formally listed as threatened/endangered and those species which are potential candidates for formal listing due to a decline in numbers, range and/or habitat. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 16 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR the residential living environment." The proposed closure of RttV would be consistent with this policy because it would remove an existing land use which is incompatible with some of the nearby neighborhoods (depending upon their location). If the airport were closed, the redevelopment of the airport property for park, residential, or commercial/industrial uses (at the intensities stated in Section I) would also be consistent with this policy. This conclusion assumes that any industrial uses which might handle or store hazardous materials would be required to comply with existing regulations regarding those substances. H.EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT POLICY RHV is located in the Evergreen area of San Jose in which traffic from proposed projects is required to comply with the City’s Evergreen Development Policy (EDP)J1 The EDP allocates development in Evergreen based upon the availability of capacity in the roadway network. There are currently approximately 1,800 housing units allocated for construction within Evergreen, which is the maximum which could be built without overloading the roadway network (including various roadway improvements not yet constructed). Beyond the 1,800-allocated units, the EDP states that any future project would have to mitigate traffic impacts according to San Jose’s citywide level of service policy. The proposed project would not violate the EDP because, by closing the airport, traffic would be reduced in the short-term. The redevelopment of the RHV property as a park would also not violate this policy due to minimal traffic generation associated with this use. However, redevelopment of the RHV property with either residential or commercial/industrial uses would cause violations of the EDP at a number of nearby intersections. [See Section III., C., Ground Transportation, for a detailed traffic impact analysis.] Compliance with this policy under the residential and/or commercial industrial scenarios would require substantial mitigation. ~The area governed by the Ever~een Development Policy is generally bounded by U.S. t01 on the west, Story Road on the north, the foothills on the east, and Yerba Buena Road & The Villages on the south. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE !7 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR IXI. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION [Introductor~ Notes: As discussed on page 7, this EIR assesses the impacts of the proposed closure of Reid-HiIlview Airport, including a discussion of the likely impacts of three possible redevelopment scenarios for the airport property. It is important to note that no redevelopment proposals have been put forth by the County; the impacts of possible redevelopment described herein are included in this EIR so as to provide the public and decision-makers with information regarding the full implications of a decision to close the airport. CEQA requires that an EIR take into account the cumulative impacts from similar projects being proposed in the same timeframe and in the same area. In this context, the analyses included in the following sections take into account the combined effects of the proposed closure of RHV and the proposed downsizing of general aviation facilities at nearby San Jose International Airport (SJC). The reader is referred to page 27for details on the various proposals under consideration at SJC.] A. LAND USE 1.Existing Land Use Existing land uses in the project area are shown on Figure 6 on the following page. RHV is located on a site of approximately 180 acres adjacent to Capitol Expressway, and is one of five airports in Santa Clara County. The airport is a publicly-owned and operated transportation facility. One area of the airport property along Cunningham Avenue is utilized for non-aviation purposes. That area is leased by the County to the Eastridge Little League for one dollar per year; it contains a baseball field, bleachers, and a snack bar building. The predominant land use to the west and north of the airport is residential. The residences are primarily single-family detached dwellings. The notable exceptions are the Eastridge Mobile Estates, a 187-unit mobilehome park, and Foxdale Manor, a 287-unit apartment complex. Interspersed among the residential uses are a number of schools, including Meyer Elementary, Smith Elementary, Cassell Elementary, Fischer Middle, Overfelt Senior High, and Most Holy Trinity. Directly north of the airport is Hillview Park; the _+13-acre park is owned and operated by the City of San Jose, and contains a baseball field, the Hank Lopez Community Center, and the Hillview Branch of the San Jose Public Library. On Cunningham Avenue, adjacent to the westerly boundary of the airport, is the Boys & Girls Club. On the east side of the airport, across Capitol Expressway are residential uses and Lake Cunningham Regional Park. Lake Cunningham is a _+200-acre park which contains a large lake with adjacent picnic facilities. Also located within the park is Raging Waters, a large waterslide complex. The primary existing land use on the south side of RHV is commercial, although residential uses are located southwest of the airport. The most notable land use is Eastridge Mall, a large regional shopping center directly south of the airport, across Tully Road. Other commercial uses along Tully Road adjacent to RHV include public storage facilities. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 18 MARCH 1996 DRAFT E[R ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: EXISTING LAND USE 19 Vacant Vacant ~ Single-Family Residential ~Muhi-Family Residential 1~ Commercial F7~ Public Facility ~Park I" = 800’ Base Map: City of San Jose, 1995 FIGURE 6 2.Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Impacts For this project, the thresholds of significance for a land use impact are defined as follows: 1) the project will result in a change in land use which is incompatible with the surrounding land uses, or 2) the project will conflict with the land use policies of the County, the City, and/or the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 3.Land Use Impacts The proposed closure of RHV will result in a beneficial land use impact with regard to the issue of land use compatibility. This statement is based on the fact that, over the years since RHV was opened in 1939, various land use decisions were made which have resulted in the construction of uses near the airport which are not compatible with an airport, based upon criteria contained in various land use plans. These land use plans, specifically the Santa Clara County and City of San Jose General Plans, call for the regulation of land uses around airports using the criteria contained in the ALUC’s "Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports". In turn, the ALUC plan calls for either no development or low intensity, non-residential, development near airports, particularly in the areas which are in line with airport runways. Using ALUC land use compatibility criteria~2, the following existing land uses are not compatible with Reid-Hillview Airport: o o o o o +_501 residences north of the airport Portions of Meyer, Fischer, and Cassell Schools Hillview Park, including Lopez Community Center & Hillview Library Eastridge Mall Portions of Lion Business Park (on Quimby Road) The above statement that these land uses are incompatible with RHV notwithstanding, it should be noted that these land uses predate the ALUC regulations, and that the ALUC does not regulate existing land uses. Nonetheless, if the ALUC land use regulations had been in place when these existing land uses were originally proposed, the land uses likely would not have been approved. Therefore, recognizing that various decisions have been made to locate land uses near RHV which are not compatible with an airport, the closure of the airport "eliminates" this inconsistency. It is in this context that this analysis concludes that the closure of the airport would result in a beneficial land use impact. 12ALUC land use compatibility criteria with regard to safety are discussed in Section III., E., Public Safety. ALUC land use compatibility criteria with regard to noise are discussed in Section III., D., Noise. Land use compatibility issues are also discussed in Section IV., Alternatives. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 20 MARCH !996 DRAFT EIR Land Use Impacts due to Redevelopment on the Airport Site If Reid-Hillview is closed, the redevelopment of the 180-acre aJ~ort property for park, residential, or commercial/industrial uses (at the intensities stated in Section I) would generally be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. This conclusion is based on a review of applicable community development policies in San Jose’s General Plan. This conclusion is also based on a review of the proposed development intensities for the residential and the commercial/industrial redevelopment scenarios. At the proposed intensities, the size, height, and mass of any new buildings on the airport property would not be incompatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, any specific future development proposal(s) would be subject to the City’s architectural review process to ensure compatibility with the surrounding land uses. This conclusion on land use compatibility assumes that any industrial uses on the airport property which might handle or store hazardous materials would be required to comply with existing regulations regarding those substances. Conclusion on Land Use Impacts Based upon the above analysis, taking into account the thresholds of significance listed on page 20, it is concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant land use impacts. Rather, the primary land use impact would be beneficial in nature. 4.Mitigation for Land Use Impacts No mitigation is warranted or required since the proposed project will not result in any significant land use impacts. B.AIR TRANSPORTATION 1.Existing Setting RHV is one of three general aviation airports in Santa Clara County, the other two being Palo Alto and South County. San Jose International Airport (SJC) also serves general aviation, although there are proposals under consideration to downsize general aviation facilities at SJC in order to meet increased air carrier and air cargo demand. According to the Regional Airport System Plan for the Bay Area, RHV is one of 23 airports which serves general aviation. Based upon 1990 data, Reid-Hillview was the Bay Area’s 7th busiest general aviation airport.13 RHV is also a designated reliever airport for SJC.14 ~3Source: "Regional Airport System Plan Update", Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1994. ~4The term "reliever airport" refers to an airport’s role in relationship to another nearby airport. In this case, since SJC is the airport which accommodates commercial aviation (i.e., airlines, commuter airlines, and air cargo), areawide demand for general aviation facilities that cannot be met at SJC is accommodated or "relieved" at RHV. This concept is important in the context of SJC’s current proposal to downsize their general aviation facilities; see subsequent discussions for further details. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 21 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR TABLE 4 I-IISTORIC Year Historic/Actual 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Forecast/Projected 2000~ 2000~ ~0003 20004 Notes AND PROJECTED ACTIVITY LEVELS AT REID-HILLVIEW Based Aircraft Annual Operations 421 470 690 739 739 742 745 719 720 725 731 749 635 604 575 551 548 n,a. 525 422 502 546 626 ~Assumes no downsizin~" of existing general aviation facilities at SJC. 2Assumes SJC Master Plan Alternative B is approved. 3Assumes SJC Master Plan Alternative A is approved. 4Assumes SJC Master Plan is approved. 294,455 317,366 313,574 307,455 303,017 302,224 310,620 372,673 398,640 362,949 321,661 223,427 137,019 171,960 225,013 214,751 208,837 190,465 i86,121 196,568 207,578 188,479 178,584 177,541 167,480 171,500 199,000 213,900 241,400 Capacity at Reid-Hillview is as follows: 900 based aircraft / 400,000 annual operations Forecast/Projected Operations have been rounded to the nearest hundred. Sources Airport Management Records, FAA, Aries Consultants, David Powers & Associates. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 22 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Aircraft activity levels have fluctuated Over the years at RI-IV, as shown in Table 4. The busiest year in the airport’s history was in 1978, when there were over 398,000 operations. In recent years, the activity levels have been dropping, primarily due to economic factors. In 1994, there were 525 based aircraft and 167,480 annual operations at RHV. The development and operation of RHV, as well as Palo Alto and South County Airports, is guided by the Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan. The original Airports Master Plan was adopted in 1966, and an updated Airports Master Plan was subsequently adopted in 1982. The Airports Master Plan states that the capacity of RHV is 900 based aircraft (its current capacity) and 400,000 annual operations.Is RHV has two parallel runways, Runway 13L/31R and Runway 13R/31L16, each of which is 3,100 feet in length. In a typical year, the vast majority of takeoffs and landings are on Runways 31L and 31R, based upon prevailing wind conditions. Runway 13L/31R has lights which allows for nighttime operations, although approximately 90% of existing operations at RHV occur prior to 7 P.M. Approach aids on the runways consist of devices known as a VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicator). RHV has a FAA-staffed air traffic control tower which is in operation seven days a week between the hours of 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Aircraft which utilize RHV are primarily single and twin engine propeller-driven airplanes. Approximately one percent of operations is by helicopters. Aircraft which weigh more than 12,500 pounds (maximum gross take-off weight) are not allowed at RHV. Facilities at RHV include a terminal building, fueling facilities, and shelters, T-hangars, and tie-downs for up to 900 aircraft. There are other buildings at RHV which are leased by the County to various FBO’s (Fixed Base Operators)Y There are presently 29 business tenants at RHV; see Section III., G., Business Relocations, for details on these businesses. In addition to its function under "normal" conditions, the RHV facility provides services during emergency conditions. Squadron 80 of the Civil Air Patrol is based at RHV. Squadron 80, the busiest squadron in California, participates in searches for missing aircraft and missing persons, as well as assisting with drug enforcement activities. In addition, in the aftermath of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, emergency supplies were airlifted to Monterey County from RHV because many areas were inaccessible by road. 15An "operation" is defined as a takeoff or landing. If, for example, a plane takes off and then returns for a landing, two operations will have occurred. ~6Runways are usually designated by the first two digits corresponding to the compass heading of the runway centerline. If there are two parallel runways which have the same numerical designation, as is often the case, they are also described with the letters "R" and "L", which stand for "right" and "left", respectively. Thus, the same piece of runway pavement is designated as Runway 31L ("runway thirty-one left") when RHV is operating in its typical south-to-north configuration. Approximately 30% of the time during a typical year, the airport is operated in a north- to-south configuration, and the same runway pavement is then referred to and designated as Runway 13R ("runway thirteen right"). ~7A fixed base operator (FBO) is a business which operates at an airport that provides aircraft services to the public. Examples of such services include the sale of fuel and oil, aircraft maintenance and repairs, flight instruction, aircraft sales, aircraft parking and storage, and air taxi/charter operations. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 23 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 2.Threshold of ~,!gnificance for Air Transportation Impacts For this project, the threshold of significance for an air transportation impact is defined as follows: the project will result in a situation in which projected general aviation demand exceeds general aviation capacity such that additional or replacement facilities are warranted. This criterion has been defined as demand exceeding capacity by more than 100 based aircraft and/or by more than 100,000 annual operations. Projected demand takes into account the location and capacity of available general aviation facilities to which aircraft owners would reasonably go. [Note: The County does not have formally adopted thresholds of significance for air transportation impacts, and there are no known thresholds being used for this type of impact by other agencies. Therefore, the above threshold was developed by Aries Consultants during the Phase I portion of the studies for this EIR, at the request of County staff. The threshold is based upon Aries’ professional judgment as aviation consultants, with input from personnel at SRI International.] 3.Air Transportation Impacts Methodology for Determining Impacts During the Phase I portion of the studies undertaken for this EIR, Aries Consultants Ltd., was retained to gather data for the purpose of answering the following questions: o o o o What is the future demand for general aviation in the area? What is the future capacity of the regional general aviation system? Where will aircraft owners relocate if RHV is closed? What is the impact of the proposed downsizing of general aviation at SJC? Is there a demand for a replacement airport if RHV is closed and/or SJC Downsizes? The following discussion summarizes the methodology utilized by Aries Consultants to answer these questions. For readers desiring detailed information, the entire Aries report is reprinted as Appendix B of this EIR. Future Demand and Capacity for General Aviation These data were obtained by contacting the airport operators of all 16 general aviation airports in the study area (see Figure 7). [Note: The study area was centered on Santa Clara Counw. Therefore, airports in the northern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area were not included and airports in the northern portion of the Monterey Bay Area were included.] Forecast demands prepared by the FAA, the State of California, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and various airport master plans were also reviewed. These data were analyzed and compiled into a summary table which shows projected general aviation demand and capacity in the area for the year 2000, assuming no downsizing of facilities at SJC and no closure of RHV (i.e., the base case). Table 5 presents the results of this part of the Aries analysis. The data in Table 5 for SJC has been updated from that originally obtained by Aries to reflect the most current projections available. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 24 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR ~arin County Sail Francisco HALF MOON BAY AIRPORT Air Carrier Airport ’F;:General Aviation Airport Napa County Solano County ~’BUCHANAN FIELD Contra Costa County INT’L. SAN CARLOS: AIRPORT San Mateo County NORTH FIELD ’R HAYWARDAIR TERMINAL LIVERMORE ~MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Alameda County PALO ALTO AIRPORT SAN JOSE .~INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Santa Cruz County AIRPORT Santa Clara County WATSOD AIRPORT "!~ SOUTH COUNTY AIRPORT MONTEREY PENINSULA AIRPORT LAKE ~ AIRPORT HOLLISTEF County 7;,MUNICIPAL SALINAS AIRPORT MUNICIPAL/San Benito ’F;AIRPORT’~ County San Joaquin County ~; TRACY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Stanislaus County Merced County AIRPORT STUDY AREA FIGURE 7 25 Relocation Preferences To determine where aircraft owners would relocate their aircraft if RHV were to be closed, a detailed survey was mailed to all aircraft owners at RHV. Included among the survey questions were inquiries as to relocation preferences, as well as inquires regarding the residential location of the aircraft owner. For the SJC downsizing scenarios, aircraft were redistributed from SJC based upon the location of the aircraft owner, using County Tax Assessor’s data. San Jose International Airport SJC is located approximately five miles northwest of RHV. Growth in air carrier and air cargo service at SJC has risen dramatically in recent years, a trend which is projected to continue. As an example, in 1990, SJC handled 2.9 million passengers, a figure which grew to over 8 million in 1994. Forecast demand for SJC is 17.6 million passengers by year 2010.18 In view of this historic and projected growth, SJC is presently analyzing three alternatives for updating its Airport Master Plan. Each of these three alternatives would downsize SJC’s existing general aviation facilities to varying degrees in order to accommodate demand for air carrier and air cargo services. Since space and capacity are constrained at SJC for a variety of reasons, an expansion of air carrier and air cargo facilities will necessitate some displacement of general aviation facilities. According to the Regional Airport System Plan and the Santa Clara County General Plan, RHV and the other two County general aviation airports should accommodate the demand resulting from general aviation facilities being displaced at SJC. The proposed Master Plan for SJC would fully accommodate projected demand for air carrier and air cargo services. Master Plan Alternatives A and B would accommodate future demand to lesser degrees. These alternatives are summarized in Table 6. TABLE 6 SAN JOSE INT’L AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES Demand Accommodated Year 2010 No Proposed Master Plan Master Plan Demand Project Master Plan Alternative A Alternative B Annual # of 17,623,700 10,765,000 17,623,700 13,100,000 12,400,000 Passengers (61%)(100%)(74%)(70%) Annual Tons 315,300 155,500 315,300 283,200 167,200 of Air Cargo (49%)(100%)(90%)(53%) # of Gen. Aviation 630 600 320 430 490 Based Aircraft (95%)(51%)(68%)(78%) Source:City of San Jose, 1995. ~SSource: Initial Study for SJC Master Plan Update, July 1995. RED-H1LLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 27 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR The latest forecast for SJC shows a demand for 630 based general aviation aircraft at that airport in the year 2010 (see Tables 5 and 6). If SJC does not adopt an updated Airport Master Plan, it would retain its existing capacity for 600 based general aviation aircraft. Depending u~on which Master Plan alternative is adopted, general aviation facilities at SJC would be downsized to varying degrees, as shown in Table 6. Results of Analysis on Air Transportation Impacts The forecast for RHV in year 2000 shows a demand for 400 based aircraft and 164,000 annual operations. This is well within the capacity of the airport, as shown in Table 5. If RHV is closed, these 400 aircraft would be relocated to other airports. However, the Aries analysis found that 5% of aircraft owners would sell their planes if RHV is closed, and another 5% would relocate their aircraft out of the area. Therefore, the Aries analysis distributed 361 aircraft (i.e., 90% of 400) from RHV, using the methodology described above. The forecast for SJC shows a demand for 630 based aircraft. This demand exceeds capacity by 30, assuming no downsizing at SJC. If SJC adopts a new Airport Master Plan, demand will exceed capacity by between 140 and 310 aircraft, depending upon which master plan alternative is adopted. Therefore, the Aries analysis also distributed aircraft from SJC. Table 7, below, shows the total number of aircraft which were redistributed from RHV and SJC under the various scenarios being considered. TABLE 7 PROJECTED NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT TO BE RELOCATED UNDER VARIOUS RHV AND SJC SCENARIOS $ San Jose Int’l Airport Alternatives $Reid-Hillview Open Reid.Hillview Closed Existing Facilities 30 391 Master Plan (Preferred Alternative)310 671 Master Plan - Alternative A 200 561 Master Plan - Alternative B 140 501 Notes: 1.Data are for general aviation aircraft. 2.Horizon/analysis year is 2000, except for San Jose Int’l where year 2010 is used. 3.Data are based on demand forecasts and upon available capacity. 4.It is assumed, based upon the RHV aircraft owners’ survey, that 5% of aircraft would be sold and another 5% would be relocated out of the Bay Area if RHV were to be closed. These assumptions are accounted for in the data in this table. Sources:Aries Consultants (1993), David Powers & Associates (1995 update). From Table 7, it can be seen that the number of aircraft to be redistributed to other airports ranges from a low of 30 under the "RHV open/no downsizing at SJC" scenario, to a high of 671 under the "RHV closed/new master plan at SJC" scenario. Tables 8 and 9 show the impact of redistribution assuming RHV stays open, and Tables 10 and 11 show the impact REID-HILLV~EW AIRPORT CLOSURE 28 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR of redistribution assuming RHV is closed. The data in Tables 8 and 9 indicate that, if RHV stays open, SJC could downsize its general aviation facilities without significantly impacting the general aviation system of the area. In contrast, the data in Tables 10 and 11 show that the combined effect of closing RHV and downsizing at SJC will significantly impact the general aviation system of the area. Even if SJC does not downsize its general aviation facilities but RHV is closed, the general aviation system would still be significantly impacted by the closure of RHV (using the criterion stated on page 24.) Conclusion on Impacts to Air Transportation The conclusions which can be made, based upon all of the analysis and data shown on the previous pages, are summarized in Table 12, below. The data in Table 12 show that the construction of a replacement airport is indicated if RHV is closed, even if SJC does not downsize its general aviation facilities. This is a significant environmental impact for air transportation, using the threshold of significance listed on page 24. If SJC adopts its proposed Master Plan or Master Plan Alternatives A or B, the degree of this impact would be even greater because more aircraft would be displaced. Thus, this impact is significant both individually and cumulatively. TABLE 12 SUMMARY MATRIX: DEMAND FOR NEW REPLACEMENT AIRPORT ~. San Jose Int’l Airport Alternatives ~ I[ Reid-Hillview Open Reid-Hillview Closed Existing Facilities NO YES Master Plan NO YES Master Plan - Alternative A NO YES Master Plan - Alternative B NO YES Notes:For the purposes of this EIR, the threshold for a new replacement airport is defined as follows: an excess demand of 100 based aircraft and/or 100,000 annual operations. Sources:Aries Consultants (1993), David Powers & Associates (1995 update). 4.Mitigation for Impacts to Air Transportation The analysis has concluded that the proposed project would result in a significant impact upon air transportation. In addition, there would be a significant cumulative impact upon air transportation if RHV closes and SJC downsizes its general aviation facilities. There are a number of ways this significant individual and cumulative impact could be avoided or mitigated. These measures are discussed below. R_EID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 33 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Creek, the impact of flooding would need to be addressed and mitigated. Potential seismic constraints at Site A include three nearby faults which run through the adjacent gravel pits. There are two recorded archaeological sites in proximity to Site A and, because of its location adjacent to Coyote Creek, the site is in a highly sensitive archaeological zone. Development of Site A as an airport would also result in the loss of some ecologically-valuable riparian habitat, as well as oak woodland habitat. The western portion of the site contains a nesting area for the Great Blue Heron. The Mount Hamilton Thistle and the California Red-legged Frog, both candidate endangered species, may be found on Site A. Thus, development of this site would likely have significant biological impacts. Site B Most of Site B is in private, ownership, but a portion of the site is owned by Santa Clara County. Access to the site would be via a new roadway from Monterey Road at either Live Oak Avenue or Kirby Road. The site is presently used for agricultural purposes and is designated as "Prime Farmland" by the Soil Conservation Service. Development of Site B as an airport would directly impact a commercial greenhouse operation and up to three residences. Development would also result in the unavoidable loss of prime farmland. Two residences would be within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport, and up to nine residences and portions of the Hacienda Valley Mobilehome Park and an RV park would be within the 60 dB noise contour. Although Site B is not located within a 100-Year Floodplain, it is located within the designated "Anderson Dam Breakage Flood Zone". There is one recorded archaeological site in proximity to Site B and, because of its location adjacent to Coyote Creek, the site is in a highly sensitive archaeological zone. Development of Site B as an airport would also result in the loss of some ecologically-valuable riparian habitat, as well as oak woodland habitat. The Mount Hamilton Thistle, the California Tiger Salamander, and the California Red-legged Frog, all of which are candidate endangered species, may be found on Site B. Thus, development of this site would likely have significant biological impacts. Site C-1 Site C-1 is comprised of eight parcels which are entirely in private ownership. Access to the site would be via a new roadway from Frazier Lake Road. The site is presently used for agricultural purposes and is designated as "Prime Farmland" by the Soil Conservation Service. Development of Site C-1 as an airport would directly impact three residences. Development would also result in the unavoidable loss of prime farmland, No residences would be within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport, but approximately ten residences would be within the 60 dB noise contour. Since Site C-1 lies within the 100-Year Floodplain of Llagas Creek, the impact of flooding would need to be addressed and mitigated. A designated seismic hazard zone (i.e., high potential for compressible soils and differential settlement) is located adjacent to the western boundary of Site C-l, which may or may not affect the airport. There are no recorded archaeological sites in proximity to Site C-1. However, because of its proximity to Llagas Creek, the site is in a sensitive archaeological zone. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 36 MARCH !996 DRAFT EIR Site C-2 Site C-2 is comprised of 14 parcels which are entirely in private ownership. Access to the site would be via a new roadway from Furlong Avenue. The site is presently used for agricultural purposes and is designated as "Prime Farmland" by the Soil Conservation Service. Development of Site C-2 as an airport would not directly impact any residences. However, development would result in the unavoidable loss of prime farmland. No residences would be within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour ofthe airport, but approximately eight residences would be within the 60 dB noise contour. Since Site C-2 lies within the 100-Year Floodplain of Llagas Creek, the impact of flooding would need to be addressed and mitigated. There are no recorded archaeological sites in proximity to Site C-2. However, because of its proximity to Llagas Creek, the site is in a sensitive archaeological zone. Conclusion on Mitigation Measure of Con.structing a Replacement Airport Based upon this preliminary analysis, it is concluded that, while this mitigation measure of constructing a new replacement airport would mitigate the above-described impacts to air transportation, this mitigation itself would result in additional potentially significant environmental impacts. Since no detailed analysis has been completed, it is not known which of the potentially significant impacts associated with a new airport could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. However, since each of the four sites is located on prime farmland, the development of an airport at any of these locations would result in the loss of agricultural land, a significant impact for which there is no adequate mitigation. This mitigation measure of constructing a replacement airport is no__~t part of the proposed project. Expansion of an Existing Airport Another mitigation measure could be to expand an existing airport so that the excess general aviation demand created by the closure of RHV and the downsizing at SJC could be accommodated. Since the Santa Clara County General Plan states that general aviation demand generated within the County should be accommodated within the County (see text discussion on page 14), the two options for potential airport expansion would be Palo Alto Airport and South County Airport. The possible expansion of Palo Alto and South County Airports was evaluated in detail when the Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan was updated in 1981-82. After substantial technical analyses, environmental analyses, and public testimony, the Board of Supervisors decided not to expand these airports. In fact, the adopted 1982 Airports Master Plan substantially decreased the maximum number of operations at these two airports from that which was contained in the original 1966 Airports Master Plan. Environmental considerations were of paramount importance in these decisions regarding the future of these two airports, as described below. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 37 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Construction of a Replacement Airport The feasibility of a replacement airport has been studied previously, most recently in a 1991 study by Aries Consultants for the City of San Jose entitled "Santa Clara County General Aviation Reliever Airport Site Selection Study".19 This study generally assessed the feasibility of a new general aviation airport in the context of various aviation, land use, environmental, and economic factors, taking into account data from the previous studies. Some of the difficulties in siting a new airport in Santa Clara County include finding a location which 1) is accessible, 2) is not in a heavily developed area, 3) is not adversely affected by surrounding terrain, and 4) does not interfere with flight patterns at other existing airports. These criteria essentially eliminate all of northern and central Santa Clara County as potential sites for a new airport. Potentially feasible sites are, therefore, found in the South County area where there are some locations with relatively sparse populations. The 1991 study identified four potential sites where an airport might be constructed, as shown on Figure 8. Site A is located just north of Morgan Hill along Monterey Road near the Riverside Golf Course. Site B is located at the northerly limits of Morgan Hill along Monterey Road near Burnett Avenue. Site C-1 is located east of Gilroy along Frazier Lake Road. Site C-2 is located east of Gilroy along Furlong Avenue. Site A could support a "Basic Utility, Stage 1" airport with one 2,500’ runway. Site B could support a "General Utility, Stage 1" airpo~ with one 3,700’ runway. Sites C-1 and C-2 could support a "General Utility, Stage 1" airport with two 3,700’ runways. Preliminary cost estimates to construct an airport at these sites were developed. These costs are: $19.9 million for Site A, $27.2 million for Site B, $18.4 million for Site C-l, and $18.8 million for Site C-2. The 1991 study found that the four sites have potential as an airport site with a capacity of between 400 and 700 based aircraft. [Note: RHV’s capacity is 900 based aircraft.] However, each of the four potential sites has its own set of potentially significant environmental impacts. A/though the 1991 study did not include a detailed environmental assessment, it did highlight potential problems and constraints.These problems and constraints are summarized as follows: Site A Most of Site A is owned by Santa Clara County. Access to the site would be via a new roadway from either Monterey Road or from the Scheller Avenue interchange on U.S. 101. Roughly 65% of the site is within the Coyote Creek Park Chain, and another 30% of the site is agricultural (designated "Prime Farmland" by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service). Development of Site A as an airport would require the realignment/replacement of the existing Coyote Creek trail and the unavoidable loss of prime farmland. No residences would be within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport, but up to four residences would be within the 60 dB noise contour. Since Site A lies within the 100-Year Floodplain of Coyote ~gThis study is incorporated into this EIR by reference. A copy is available for review during normal business hours. Monday through Friday, at Reid-Hillview Airport, 2500 Cunningham Avenue, San Jose (contact person: Larry Feldman at (408) 929-1060). REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 34 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 1" = _+_ 2.3 Miles ,/ LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL AIRPORT SITE FIGURE 8 35 Palo Alto Airport Palo Alto Airport is located on land owned by the City of Palo Alto in the easterly portion of that city, adjacent to San Francisco Bay. The airport is operated by Santa Clara County under the terms of a lease with the City of Palo Alto. The airport is surrounded by a golf course to the west, Palo Alto’s Water Pollution Control Plant to the south, and open space/recreation/wetlands to the east and north. The open space/recreation areas include salt marsh preserves, a duck pond, yacht harbor, and a nature interpretive center. These areas are part of the Baylands Park, a major recreational and natural conservation area. Development in this area is governed by the City’s BayIands Master Plan, which calls for no expansion of the airport. This goal was established in recognition of the presence of "one of the most significant, largely undisturbed areas of native marsh vegetation, endangered species habitats, and habitats for waterfowl and shorebirds in the South Bay." (Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan) Expansion of Palo Alto Airport is possible from a technical engineering perspective, although such expansion would be inconsistent with the Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and the Baylands Master Plan. From an environmental perspective, airport expansion would adversely affect the adjacent conservation and recreational areas due to increased noise and intrusion. Expansion would also increase potential safety risks associated with aircraft/bird collisions due to the presence of the wildlife refuge. Expansion would likely involve the filling of wetlands which are protected by various federal and state statutes and, in this case, are habitat for the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. Finally, increased noise due to airport expansion would adversely affect residential neighborhoods in portions of East Palo Alto. [Note: Because Palo Alto owns the airport land, this mitigation measure is partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Palo Alto and, thus, cannot be implemented by the County alone.] South Count3’ Airport South County Airport is located on a 179-acre site in San Martin. The airport is owned and operated by Santa Clara County. The primary land use in the vicinity of the airport is agricultural. In addition, rural residential and low density residential uses are located in the general area. Expansion of South County Airport is possible from a technical engineering perspective, although such expansion would be inconsistent with the Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan. From an environmental perspective, airport expansion would likely result in the loss of prime farmland. Expansion would also increase noise levels at the residences in the vicinity of the airport. Conclusion on Mitigation Measure of Expanding an Existing Airport Based upon this discussion, it is concluded that, while this mitigation measure of expanding an existing airport could mitigate the above-described impacts to air transportation, this mitigation itself would result in additional potentially significant environmental impacts. This mitigation measure is not part of the proposed project. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 38 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Use of Moffett Federal Airfield Excess general aviation demand could be accommodated at Moffett Federal Airfield (formerly Moffett Field Naval Air Station). Moffett is a large airfield adjacent to the Cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View which is presently operated by NASA and is underutilized in terms of the capacity of the airfield. Moffett also has numerous buildings and facilities which were formerly used by the Navy, many of which could likely be utilized for general aviation purposes. The use of Moffett by general aviation would have noise impacts upon the surrounding communities, such impacts being greater than existing conditions. Other impacts would likely include increased traffic and increased emissions of air pollutants. Although the use of Moffett Federal Airfield for general aviation is technically viable, the adoption of this mitigation is presently infeasible because Moffett is not open for civilian aviation use. This conclusion is underscored by the letter received from NASA in response to the Notice of Preparation for this EIR which states that NASA is opposed to the use of Moffett Field by general aviation. Further, both Sunnyvale and Mountain View are strongly opposed to this possibility due to potential impacts upon their communities. This mitigation measure is no.__3t part of the proposed project. Retention of General Aviation Facilities at SJC This mitigation measure would consist of the retention of all of the existing general aviation facilities at SJC. Adoption of this measure would, however, not be sufficient by itself to mitigate the impact of the project upon air transportation to a less-than-significant level, based upon the criterion of significance listed on page 24. In other words, even with adoption of this measure, there would still be an excess demand of 115 aircraft at Palo Alto Airport due to the closure of RHV (see Table 10), which marginally exceeds the significance criterion of 100 based aircraft. The advantage of this measure is that it would avoid the significant cumulative impact which would result if both RHV closes and SJC downsizes. The primary disadvantage of this measure is that the retention of all general aviation facilities at SJC would not allow the City of San Jose to achieve its stated objective to "accommodate, to the extent feasible, current and future demand for commercial air carrier services" (SJC Master Plan Initial Study). The reason for this last statement is that there is insufficient room on the 1,050 acres of land occupied by SJC to retain all general aviation facilities a.nd, at the same time, build additional facilities to accommodate commercial air carrier demand. This mitigation measure could not be implemented by the County. Implementation of this measure would be by the San Jose City Council, because SJC is owned and operated by the City of San Jose. This measure is no_._!t part of the proposed project. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 39 MARCH !996 DRAFT EIR C.TRAFFIC 1.Existing Setting Existing Roadway Network The existing roadway network in the vicinity of RHV is shown on Figure 9 on the following page. The primary roadways in the area are U.S. 101 and 1-680, both of which are 8-lane freeways, and Capitol Expressway, a regional 4 to 6-lane facility. Major arterials in the area include Tully Road, Story Road, and King Road. The primary access point to RHV is via Cunningham Avenue, from Capitol Expressway. Ocala Avenue is a 2-lane collector which provides access to the residential areas north and west of the airport. Existing Public Transportation RHV is served by a number of bus routes which are operated by the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. Local routes which pass directly by RHV include lines 22, 26, 31, 39, 70, 71, 74, and 77. Express routes include lines 145, 321, and 503. A regional bus transfer center is located across Tully Road from RHV at the Eastridge Shopping Center. These buses serve much of Santa Clara County, including connections to the County’s light rail transit (LRT) system, CalTrain, and BART. Existing Vehicle Trips Generated by Reid-Hillview Based upon traffic counts taken in 1992, RHV generates approximately 830 vehicle trips per day. Of these daily trips. 96 occur during the PM peak-hour. Existing Intersection Levels of Service Level of service (LOS) is a tool used for assessing how an intersection is operating during peak travel periods, typically the AM and/or PM peak commute hours. The various levels of service are based upon ratios in which an intersection’s traffic volumes are divided by the intersection’s capacity. Levels of service range from "A", representing free-flow conditions, to "F", representing jammed conditions. San Jose has adopted a minimum transportation planning standard of LOS "D". The LOS concept is more fully explained in Table 13. For this EIR traffic analysis, 20 study intersections were analyzed. The locations of these intersections are shown on Figure 9. Existing PM peak-hour levels of service,’° at these 20 study intersections are shown on Table 14. Five of the 20 intersections, all of which are on Capitol Expressway, are presently operating below acceptable standards. Six other intersections are operating at the minimum LOS of "D". These data indicate that much of the roadway system is presently operating close to capacity, or above capacity. :~q’raffic analyses performed in San Jose typically use the PM peak-hour for assessing the impacts of projects. The AM peak-hour is not typically analyzed. This analysis also uses San Jose’s LOS methodology. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 40 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 680 TULLY ROAD Z STORY RD. OCALA AV. ;UNNINGHAM AV. ~ WAVERLY AVi u"b rn m TABLE 13 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level Average Volume to of Stopped Delay Capacity Service per Vehicle Ratio (seconds) Description A 0-5 0.00-0.59 Free Flow/Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. B 5-15 0.60-0.69 Stable Operation/Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. C 15-25 0.70-0.79 Stable Operation/Acceptable Delays: Major approach phase may become fully utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D 25-40 0.80-0.89 Approaching Unstable/Tolerable Delays: Drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays. E 40-60 0.90-0.99 Unstable Operations/Significant Delays: Volumes at or near capacity. Vehicles may have to wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection. F > 60 > 0.99 Forced Flow/Excessive Delays: Represents jammed conditions. Intersection operates below capacity with low volumes. Queues may block upstream intersections. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 42 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR i~ ;~ Z Z Z Z i~ ~ Z Z Z Z i~ Z r~ 2.Thresholds of Significance for Traffic Impacts For this project, the thresholds of significance for a traffic impact are defined as follows: 1) traffic generated by the project will cause an intersection LOS to drop below "D", or 2) traffic generated by the project will increase by more than 1% at an intersection which is already operating at LOS "E" or "F’°, or 3) traffic generated by the project will increase traffic in a residential area by more than 25%. 3.Traffic Impacts Methodology for Determining Impacts The impacts of the closure of RHV upon the area’s roadway network were assessed for the year 2000. To arrive at year 2000 volumes, traffic from approved-but-not-yet-constructed projects was added to existing volumes. In addition, a growth rate of two percent per year was added to through traffic on Capitol Expressway. Traffic volumes associated with keeping the airport open were based upon 1992 vehicle counts at RHV, adjusted for year 2000 aviation activity levels. Traffic volumes associated with closing the airport and redeveloping the property were calculated using standard trip generation charts for the three possible land use scenarios. The trips were then distributed onto the roadway network by RGM Associates.-~ Levels of service at the 20 study intersections were calculated to determine the traffic impacts of each scenario. The City of San Jose’s level of service methodology was utilized for this study. RGM Associates assumed that the roadway network for the year 2000 would be the same as it is today, except that there would be six lanes on Capitol Expressway. Since the time the RGM report was completed in 1993, additional roadway improvements have been approved for the Evergreen area by the City of San Jose.’-~- Among these improvements are the inclusion of carpool lanes on Capitol Expressway, which are in addition to the six "mixed flow" lanes. In order to account for these and other planned improvements, Barton-Aschman Associates was retained in 1995 to update the 1993 RGM Associates report. The Barton- Aschman report is Appendix C of this EIR. [Note: A Congestion Management Agency (CMA) analysis was not done because no redevelopment of the RHV property is being proposed; a CMA analysis would be required if and when any redevelopment is proposed.] Discussion of Traffic Impacts The results of the traffic analyses are shown in Tables 14 - 16, and on Figure 10. The primary conclusions based upon the data in the tables and on Figure 10 can be summarized as follows: :~RGM Associates, a traffic engineering firm. was retained by Aries Consultants during the Phase I work for this project. The complete RGM report is Chapter 7 of Appendix B of this EIR. ::Source: Final EIR, "Evergeen Specific Plan Transportation Improvements", 1994. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 44 MARCH 1996 DRAFT ErR REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSLrRE 45 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Z Z =E E ;> TABLE 16 COMPARISON OF YEAR 2000 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Roadway Segment Capitol Expressway North of U.S. 101 North of King Road North of Abom Road North ofNieman Blvd North of Quimby Road North of Eastridge Loop North of Tully Road North of Cunningham North of Ocala Avenue North of Story Road King Road South of Capitol Expressway North of Tully Road North of Waverly Ave North of Cunningham North of Ocala Ave North of Story Road White Road North of Tully Road South of Tully Road StoD’ Road West of King Road Tully Road East of 101 East of Alvin Ave East of King Road East of Huran Drive East of Quimby Road East of Eastridge Way East of Eastridge Lane East of Capitol Expressway Ai~ort Open (No Proj) 7776 5863 4431 3649 Redevelop as Residential Total Chng from Percent Volume No Proj Change Redevelop as Indust/Comm. Total Chng from Percent Volume No Proj Change 8313 537 7% 6731 868 15% 5559 1128 25% 4881 1232 34% 5039 1369 37% 5042 1370 37% 5409 759 16% 4487 191 4% 5279 422 9% 6943 425 7% 8010 234 3% 6165 302 5% 4883 452 10% 4101 452 !2% 552 15% 553 15% 254 5% 125 3% 257 5% 260 4% 68 3% 56 2% 81 3% 195 7% 324 11% 170 5% 34 1% 67 3% 154 5% 168 3% 168 4% 114 3% 1!2 3% 113 5% 103 6% 306 13% 32 1% 2413 "~,,1 16% 2472 0 0% 2342 0 0% 2775 0 0% 3168 313 11% 3648 209 6% 2796 122 5% 2711 244 10% ~3-8 104 3% 6174 158 3% 4507 158 4% 4107 160 4% 4012 158 4% 2437 229 10% 2016 229 13% 3168 777 32% 2752 191 7% 3670 4222 3672 4225 4650 4904 4296 4421 4857 5114 6518 6778 2082 2150 2472 2528 2342 2423 2775 2970 2855 3179 3439 3609 2674 2708 2467 2534 3224 3378 6016 6184 4349 4517 3947 4061 3854 3966 2208 2321 1787 1890 2391 2697 2561 2593 REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 47 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR T A B L E 1 6 (continued) COMPARISON OF YEAR 2000 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Roadway Segment Ocala Avenue East of King Road West of Capitol Expressway East of Capitol Expressway Cunningham Avenue East of King Road West of Capitol Expressway East of Capitol Expressway iQuimby Road East of Tully Road East of Capitol Expressway Aborn Road West of Capitol Expressway East of Capitol Expressway Waverly Avenue East of King Road Airport Open (No Proj) I007 1031 1509 368 86 249 2498 2348 3421 2820 361 Redevelop as Residential Total Chng from Percent Volume No Proj Change 1135 128 13% 1206 175 17% 1560 51 3% 482 114 31% 536 450 523% 320 71 29% 2498 0 0% 2448 100 4% 3574 153 4% 2817 -3 0% Redevelop as Indust./Comm. Total Clang from Percent Volume No Proj Change 1319 312 31% 1254 223 22% 1509 0 0% 368 0 0% 1529 1443 1678% 742 493 198% 2568 70 3% 2485 137 6% 3561 140 4% 2906 86 3% 361 0 0%498 137 38% Notes: Park scenario is not shown as those volumes would be slightly less than the No Project. All volumes shown are 2-way volumes. Source: RGM Associates (1993) REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 48 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Closing the airport will, in the short-term, have little impact on traffic because RHV is a relatively small generator of peak-hour traffic. Specifically, closure of RHV will eliminate between 92 and 130 PM peak-hour traffic trips, with the exact number dependant upon which SJC master plan alternative is approved. Closing the airport and redeveloping the property with a park will have a negligible impact on traffic because a park, like the airport, is a relatively small generator of peak-hour traffic. In fact, a passive-use park would actually generate fewer traffic trips than does the airport. Closing the airport and redeveloping the property with residential uses will have a significant impact at 7 of the 20 study intersections during the PM peak-hour. Daily traffic volumes associated with residential uses on the property would be over 15 times geater than keeping the airport open, even assuming the maximum downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC. The residential redevelopment scenario would also significantly increase traffic on Cunningham Avenue and Waverly Avenue in existing residential neighborhoods. Closing the airport and redeveloping the property with industrial/commercial uses will have a significant impact at 8 of the 20 study intersections during the PM peak-hour. Daily traffic volumes associated with industrial/commercial uses on the property would be almost 25 times greater than keeping the airport open, even assuming the maximum downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC. The industrial/commercial redevelopment scenario would also significantly increase traffic on Ocala Avenue in existing residential "neighborhoods. Conclusion on Impacts to Traffic Using the thresholds of significance listed on page 44, it is concluded that the redevelopment of the airport property with either residential or industrial/commercial uses would result in multiple significant impacts upon traffic. These significant impacts include adverse effects at seven or eight nearby intersections, respectively, as well as substantial increases in traffic in existing residential neighborhoods. Mitigation for the impacts at the intersections is described below. However, there is no feasible mitigation for the increase in traffic through the residential neighborhoods. Closure of the airport, without any redevelopment of the property, would not result in any significant impacts to traffic. Similarly, closure of RHV and redevelopment of the airport property as a passive use park would not result in any significant impacts to traffic. 4.Mitigation for Impacts to Traffic Although the project would not result in significant traffic impacts, the above discussion identified significant impacts to traffic under two of the three possible redevelopment scenarios, assuming RHV is closed. Mitigation measures are described as follows: REID-HtLLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 49 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Mitigation for Significant Impacts at Intersections The paragaphs below summarize the mitigation measures at the affected intersections. Since no redevelopment of the airport property is being proposed at this time, these mitigation measures are not a part of the proposed project. They are presented for information only to present a picture of what could be required to mitigate for traffic generated by redevelopment of the RHV property. It is also important to note that when any future redevelopment of the airport property is formally proposed, a detailed traffic analysis would be required at that time. Depending upon the size of that redevelopment, as well as background traffic conditions in the future, it is possible that the future traffic analysis will identify impacts which are different from those identified at this conceptual level. These measures would require, in most cases, additional right-of-way and would likely affect adjacent land uses. It is difficult to determine the extent of these impacts without detailed intersection designs, but it is very possible that full property takes at a number of residences and/or businesses would be required. This relocation of businesses and/or residences would constitute a significant impact. Thus, while these measures are feasible from an engineering perspective, the measures themselves would create additional impacts which would need to be mitigated. Readers who desire more detailed information on these measures are referred to Appendix C of this EIR. Capitol Expressway and Stoo’ Road Both the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios would significantly impact operations at this intersection. The mitigation would be the same for both scenarios, and would consist of 1) adding a second westbound left-turn lane on Story Road, and 2) adding a second eastbound left-turn lane on Story Road. Capitol Expressway and Cunningham Avenue The industrial/commercial redevelopment scenario would significantly impact operations at this intersection. The mitigation measures would consist of 1) the addition of a separate southbound right-turn lane on Capitol Expressway, 2) the addition of a separate eastbound left-turn lane on Cunningham Avenue, 3) the addition of a second northbound left-turn lane on Capitol Expressway, and 4) the addition of a separate westbound left-turn lane on Cunningham Avenue. Capitol Expressway and Quimby Road Both the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios would significantly impact operations at this intersection. The mitigation would be the same for both scenarios, and would consist of adding a second eastbound left-turn lane on Quimby Road. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 50 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Capitol Expressway and Aborn Road Both the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios would significantly impact operations at this intersection. The mitigation would be the same for both scenarios, and would consist of adding a second eastbound left-turn lane on Aborn Road. Capitol Expressway and Silver Creek Road Both the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios would significantly impact operations at this intersection. The mitigation under the residential scenario would consist of the addition of a separate westbound right-turn lane on Capitol Expressway and the addition of a separate northbound right-turn lane on Silver Creek Road. The mitigation under the industrial/commercial scenario would consist of the addition of a separate northbound right-turn lane on Silver Creek Road and the addition of a fourth westbound mixed-flow through lane (i.e., a fifth through lane counting the carpool lane) on Capitol Expressway. Tully Road and King Road Both the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios would significantly impact operations at this intersection. The mitigation would be the same for both scenarios, and would consist of converting the eastbound shared through/right-turn lane on Tully Road to a third eastbound through-only lane. Tully Road and Alvin Avenue Both the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios would significantly impact operations at this intersection. The mitigation would be the same for both scenarios, and would consist of adding a second northbound left-turn lane on Alvin Avenue. King Road and Stoo’ Road Both the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios would significantly impact operations at this intersection. The mitigation would be the same for both scenarios, and would consist of adding a second northbound left-turn lane on King Road. Mitigation for Significant Impacts in Residential Neighborhoods The analysis on the previous pages concluded that both the residential and the industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios would result in a significant increase in traffic on one or more streets in existing residential neighborhoods. The impacted streets are Cunningham Avenue, Ocala Avenue, and Waverly Avenue. There are no measures available which could reasonably mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Although measures could be incorporated into the design of either the residential or the industrial/commercial development to somewhat reduce this impact, it is unlikely that such measures would be highly effective given the level of congestion on Capitol Expressway and the tendency of drivers to use the shortest and fastest routes. Thus, this is a significant unavoidable environmental impact of the residential & industrial/commercial scenarios. REID-H1LLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 52 MARCH 1996 DRAFT E~ D. NOISE 1.Existing Setting Aircraft utilizing RHV are a notable source of noise in the area. Aircraft landing at and departing from Reid-Hillview can be heard over a wide area, as is common at most airports. The other primary source of noise in the area is traffic, particularly traffic on busy facilities such as U.S. 101, 1-680, Capitol Expressway, Tully Road, and Story Road. In order to understand existing noise levels in the project area, it is necessary to explain how noise is quantified, as well as relevant regulations and policies. Interpretation of Noise Levels and Standards Noise is measured in "decibels" (dB) which is a numerical expression of sound levels on a logarithmic scale. A noise level that is ten dB higher than another noise level has ten times as much sound energy and is perceived as being twice as loud. Sounds as faint as 0 dB are just barely audible, and then only in the absence of other sounds. Intense sounds of 140 dB are so loud that they are painful and can cause damage with only a brief exposure. These extremes are not commonplace in our normal working and living environments. An "A- weighted decibel" (dBA) scale filters out some of the low and high pitches which are not as audible to the human ear. Thus, noise impact analyses commonly use the dBA. For traffic noise, ten times as many vehicles per hour means ten times as much sound energy, resulting in a ten-decibel increase, and a perceived doubling of loudness. Twice as many vehicles per hour means twice the sound energy, resulting in a three-decibel increase, and a just-noticeable increase in loudness. Twenty-six percent more vehicles per hour means 26% more sound energy, resulting in a one-decibel increase, and an all-but-imperceptible increase in loudness. The speed of traffic also affects noise levels: for every 5 mph increase in speed there is a 1 to 2-decibel increase in average noise levels. Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities (such as conversation and sleeping) and human health, Federal, State, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. The noise guidelines are almost always expressed using one of several noise averaging methods such as Leq, Ldn, or CNEL.23 Using one of these descriptors is a way for a location’s overall noise exposure to be measured, realizing of course that there are specific moments when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a plane is taking off from an airport or a leafblower is operating) and specific moments when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows or in the middle of the night). For this report the CNEL will be used as it is the descriptor commonly used around airports, and it is roughly equivalent to the Ldn descriptor used by the City of San Jose’s General Plan. "~3Leq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time such as the peak commute hour. Ldn stands for Day-Night Level and is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with 10-dB penalties applied to noise occurring between 10 PM and 7 AM. CNEL stands for Community Noise Equivalent Level; it is similar to the Ldn except that there is an additional 5-dB penalty applied to noise which occurs between 7 PM and 10 PM. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 53 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR The regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the State of California, and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) all state that noise-sensitive land uses such as residences and schools should not be located in areas where the CNEL is at or above 65 dB. In addition, in areas around general aviation airports where the CNEL is at or above 60 dB, but less than 65 dB, the ALUC recommends that residences not be located unless they have a forced air ventilation system which allows windows to remain closed. The San Jose General Plan calls for noise-sensitive land uses such residences, schools, libraries, and hospitals to have average exterior noise levels less than 60 dB Ldn in the short- term. and less than 55 dB Ldn in the long-term. Existing Noise Sources and Noise Levels Aircraft Noise For this EIR, the acoustical consulting firm of Brown-Buntin Associates was retained to quantify existing and future noise levels in the area, as pertains to aircraft noise at RHV. The complete Brown-Buntin report is found in Appendix D. The Brown-Buntin analysis involved the preparation of noise contours for RHV. Figure 11 shows the noise contours for 171,500 annual aircraft operations at RHV, which is roughly 2% greater than the 167,480 operations which occurred in 1994 and, therefore, approximates existing conditions. Table 18 tabulates the information shown on Figure 11 with regard to noise-sensitive land uses. TABLE 18 NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES INSIDE THE 60 dB CNEL CONTOUR 171,500 Annual Operations~241,400 Annual Operationsb Within 65 dB Contour +-16 single-family residences +-40 single family residences Within 60 dB Contour ___279 single family residences _189 apartments __.47 mobilehomes __.487 single family residences +_230 apartments __.56 mobilehomes 1 school ~This number is within 2% of the 1994 operational level at RHV, and is the operational level projected for RHV for year 2000, assuming no downsizing of general aviation at SJC. ~fhis number is the operational level projected for RHV for year 2000, assuming the SJC Master Plan Preferred Alternative is adopted. Sources:Brown-Buntin Associates and David Powers & Associates (1995). The data in Table 18 show that there are +-16 single-family residences north of RHV which are presently exposed to noise levels from aircraft which are at or above the 65 dB CNEL criterion of the FAA. the State, and the ALUC. In addition, there are +_279 single-family residences, +_189 apartments, and +-47 mobilehomes located within 60-65 dB CNEL contour. REID-H1LLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 54 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR OAP~TOL NOISE CONTOURS WITH 17 1,500 ANNUAL OPERATIONS 0 CNI~t C 65 CNEI CN~L, E X lz w y.’~-~ 55 1" = 800’ Base Map: City of San lose FIGURE CAPITOL CNEL 70 CNEL,:._.,)( 0 CNI 65 ~:-~NOISE CONTOURS WITH 241,400 ANNMAL,~~TIONS; Traffic Noise Along with aircraft-generated noise, traffic-generated noise is a major component of the existing noise environment in the RHV area. In fact, there are many residential locations, especially along major thoroughfares such as Capitol Expressway, where traffic-related noise exceeds aircraft-related noise. As an example, the existing Ldn!CNEL24 at the edge of the Capitol Expressway right-of-way varies between 69 and 75 dB. Although many residential locations along Capitol Expressway are shielded by soundwalls, the CNEL behind the walls is still in the 59 to 67 dB range, which exceeds both the short-term and long-term noise goals of the San Jose General Plan. Where soundwalls are not present, the CNEL at residences varies from 64 to 70 dB.~’-~ Elevated noise levels are also present in the vicinity of roadways such as Tully Road, Story Road, King Road, White Road, Aborn Road, and Quimby Road. As one moves away from these roadways, noise levels drop substantially. CNEL values under the 55-dB long-term San Jose goal are not uncommon in neighborhoods located away from busy streets. Cumulative Noise Many noise prediction computer models accurately portray noise levels from one source such as traffic or aircraft. However, some people are exposed to noise from more than one source. In those instances, the total noise will be slightly greater than that from the individual sources. Because decibels work on a logarithmic scale, two decibel values cannot be added together with simple arithmetic. The following chart shows how to add two noise levels together. Difference between the two noise values 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Amount to be added to the higher value 3.0 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 The sum total of two noise sources can never be more than 3 dB greater than the highest individual value. Applying this to the Reid-Hillview area, if one were exposed to a 60 dB CNEL value from aircraft noise and a 64 dB CNEL value from traffic noise, the total noise exposure would be a CNEL value of 65.5 dB. 2.Thresholds of Significance for Noise Impacts For this project, a significant noise impact will occtir if one or more of the following conditions result: 1) the project causes noise levels in a neighborhood to increase above San Jose’s short-term goal of 60 dB, or 2) the project causes a noise increase of 3 or more decibels in a neighborhood where the "without project" noise level already exceeds San Jose’s short-term goal of 60 dB, or 3) the project constructs a land use in an environment where the ambient noise level exceeds the goals of the San Jose General Plan. Z4As noted previously, the CNEL and Ldn are approximately equivalent to each other at many locations. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the two terms are assumed to be the same and are used interchangeably. -’~Source: Final EIR, "Evergeen Specific Plan Transportation Improvements", 1994. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 57 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 3.Noise Impacts Aircraft Noise Figures 11 and 12 show the projected year 2000 aircraft-related noise levels in the vicinity of RHV, assuming the airport remains open. The reason there are two sets of contours shown is to account for future decisions regarding general aviation facilities at SJC. If SJC does not downsize its general aviation facilities, the noise contours would be as shown on Figure 11. If SJC adopts its proposed Master Plan, the noise contours would be as shown on Figure 12. If SJC adopts either Master Plan Alternative A or Master Plan Alternative B, the contours would be somewhere in between those shown on Figures 11 and 12. Table 18 quantifies how many homes and schools would be exposed to aircraft noise at or above 60 dB CNEL in year 2000, assuming RHV remains open. The data in Table 18 indicate that _+40 single-family dwellings would be within the 65 dB CNEL contour, assuming SJC adopts its proposed Master Plan. Under the same scenario, another _+487 single-family residences, _+230 apartments. _+56 mobilehomes, and one school would be within the 60 dB CNEL contour. If RHV closes, the aircraft-related noise contours shown on Figures 11 and 12 would not exist. This would constitute a substantial beneficial noise impact. Noise Impacts due to Redevelopment on the Airport Site Parl, Redevelopment Scenario As discussed previously, relatively little traffic would be generated by a park. In fact, the amount of traffic generated by the park would be slightly less than that generated by RHV. Therefore, no traffic-related noise impacts due to a park would be expected. Because much of the Reid-Hillview property is exposed to noise levels well above 60 dB from traffic on Capitol Expressway and Tully Road, development of a park on those portions of the property would be inconsistent with San Jose’s noise policies. This would constitute a significant noise impact. See the discussion of mitigation measures, below. Residemial Redevelopment Scenario As discussed previously, redevelopment of the airport property with residential uses would generate traffic volumes more than 15 times greater than that which would occur if RHV remains open. even assuming the maximum downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC. This increased traffic will, in turn, increase noise levels along the streets in the area. Using the projected change in traffic volumes shown in Table 16 as a guide, future increases in noise levels can be projected. Those noise increases are shown in Table 19. The only substantial increase in noise would be on Cunningham Avenue within the airport property. This would not be a significant impact because it would not affect an existing neighborhood or other noise-sensitive land use. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 58 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR TABLE 19 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC-RELATED NOISE INCREASES ResidentialRoadway Segment Redevelopment Capitol Expwy - North of U.S. 101 Capitol Expwy - North of King Road Capitol Expwy - North of Aborn Road Capitol Expwy - North of Nieman Blvd. Capitol Expwy - North of Quimby Road Capitol Expwy - North of Eastridge Loop Capitol Expwy - North of Tully Road <tdB <1 dB <1 dB <ldB <ldB <! dB <1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB <ldB <1 dB <ldB <ldB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB >ldB 8 dB >ldB <1 dB <1 dB <ldB 0 1.5 dB Capitol Expwy - North of Cunningham Avenue < Capitol Expwy - North of Ocala Avenue < Capitol Expwy - North of Story Road < King Road - South of Capitol Expwy King Road - North of Tully Road King Road - North of Waverly Avenue King Road - North of Cunningham Avenue King Road - North of Ocala Avenue < King Road - North of Story Road < White Road - North of Tu!l3, Road < White Road - South of Tully Road < Story Road - West of King Road < Tully Road - East of U.S. 101 < Tully Road - East of Alvin Avenue < Tully Road - East of King Road < Tully Road - East of Huran Drive < Tully Road - East of Quimby Road < Tully Road - East of Eastridge Way < Tully Road - East of Eastridge Lane < Tully Road - East of Capitol Expwy < Ocala Avenue - East of King Road < Ocala Avenue - West of Capitol Expwy < Ocala Avenue - East of Capitol Expwy < Cunningham Avenue - East of King Road Cunningham Avenue - West of Capitol Expwy Cunningham Avenue - East of Capitol Expwy Quimby Road - East of Tully Road Quimby Road - East of Capitol Expwy Aborn Road - West of Capitol Expwy Aborn Road - East of Capitol Expwy Waverly Avenue - East of King Road Industrial/Commercial Redevelopment <ldB <1 dB <1 dB 1.5 dB 1.5 dB 1.5 dB <1 dB <1 dB <ldB <ldB <1 dB 0 0 0 <1 dB <1 dB <1 dB <1 dB <1 dB <1 dB <1 dB <1 dB <ldB <ldB <ldB >ldB <ldB >ldB <ldB 0 0 12 dB 5 dB <1 dB <ldB <ldB <ldB 0 Note: Estimates of noise increases are based upon the volumes shown in Table 16. RED-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 59 MARCH 1996 DRAFT ErR Because much of the Reid-Hillview property is exposed to noise levels well above 60 dB from traffic on Capitol Expressway and Tully Road, development of residences on those portions of the property would be inconsistent with San Jose’s noise policies. This would constitute a significant noise impact. See the discussion of mitigation measures, below. Industrial/Commercial Redevelopment Scenario As discussed previously, redevelopment of the airport property with industrial/commercial uses would generate traffic volumes almost 25 times greater than that which would occur if RHV remains open, even assuming the maximum downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC. This increased traffic will, in turn, increase noise levels along the streets in the area. Using the projected change in traffic volumes shown in Table 16 as a guide, future increases in noise levels can be projected. Those noise increases are shown in Table 19. The only substantial increase in noise would be on Cunningham Avenue within the airport property and east of Capitol Expressway. Within the airport property, this would not be a significant impact because it would not affect an existing neighborhood or other noise-sensitive land use. East of Capitol Expressway, this would not be a significant impact because the resultant noise levels are not expected to exceed San Jose’s 60 dB threshold at residential areas. Development of industrial and commercial uses on the Reid-Hillview property would be consistent with San Jose’s noise guidelines. Conclusion on Noise Impacts Based upon the above analysis, using the thresholds of significance listed on page 57, it is concluded that the closure of the airport would not result in a significant noise impact. In fact, the closure of the airport would, in the short-term, result in a beneficial noise impact. Redevelopment of the airport property with industrial/commercial uses would, likewise, not result in a significant noise impact. However, construction of either a park or residential land uses on the airport property would result in a significant noise impact because of the elevated noise levels on much of the site. 4.Mitigation for Noise Impacts The above discussion identified significant noise impacts if the property is redeveloped as either a park or with residential uses. The noise impact would occur because much of the RHV site is exposed to elevated noise levels from traffic on Capitol Expressway and Tully Road. In order to reduce noise levels on the site such that the levels are below San Jose’s short-term goal of 60 dB, construction of soundwalls would be required along Capitol Expressway and Tully Road. The height(s) of the soundwalls would likely be in the range of 7 to 10 feet, with heights dependent on the degree of setbacks of the park or residential uses from the roadways. This mitigation would reduce the identified significant noise impacts to a nonsignificant level. REtD-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 60 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR E. PUBLIC SAFETY The following discussion is based largely upon the November 1992 "Risk Assessment of the Reid- Hillview Airport Closure Evaluation Project" by SRI International. The complete SRI report is Appendix E of this EIR. 1.Existing Setting Aviation Safety Zones Most aviation-related accidents occur during the landing and take-off phases of flight. In view of this fact, it is not surprising to learn that national general aviation accident data show that 55% of accidents occur onsairport, another 13% occur within 1 mile of the airport, and another 7% occur within 2 to 5 miles of the airport. At RHV, the historical accident distribution is 65% on-airport, 21% within 1 mile of the airport, and 11% within 2 to 5 miles of the airport. In view of these data, various governmental agencies have developed safety zones at and adjacent to airports for the purpose of enhancing safety for both people on the aircraft, as well as for people on the ground. The existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) safety zones at RHV are shown on Figure 13. There are three FAA safety zones: runway safety area, object free area, and runway protection zone. No objects or development are allowed within the runway safety area and the object free area. Low intensity uses such as agriculture, golf courses, and automobile parking are allowed within the runway protection zone, but residences and places of assembly are disallowed. The ALUC safety zones apply only to future land uses in the vicinity of RHV. Because the ALUC does not address existing land uses, and because most of the land uses adjacent to RHV were constructed prior to the establishment of the ALUC in 1973, the ALUC safety zones shown on Figure 13 are different than they would have been had there been no existing development around the airport. In other words, the safety zones shown on Figure 13 for RHV were tailored to reflect existing development, as opposed to being drawn using the genetic ALUC safety criteria. Had the ALUC safety zones been in existence when most of the development around RHV was proposed, it is clear that many of the land uses surrounding RHV, including the Eastridge Mall and hundreds of residences, would likely not have been approved for construction. In general, the ALUC criteria limit new development within the safety zones to non- residential uses which have population densities of less than 10 persons per acre on an annual average basis, or less than 25 persons per acre at any one time. The criteria limit any expansion of the existing bleachers in Hillview Park to less than 100 people and limit the planting of new trees within certain areas of Hillview Park. The criteria also forbid any expansion of Eastridge Mall if it involves an exceedance of the highest present roof line elevation: other expansion is to be reviewed by the ALUC on a case-by-case basis. [Note: The reader is referred to Section III., A., Land Use, and to Section IV., Alternatives, for further discussion of ALUC criteria.] RED-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 61 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR /111 EXISTING SAFETY ZONES !1 : li lEGEND o0ooo AtUC Safety Zones []fAA Runway Safety Area FAA Object Free Area -~-FAA Runway Prolect~on Zone ~" = SO0’ Base Map C{Iy of San Jose FIGURE 13 Aviation-Related Accidents In the 31-year period of 1964 through 1994, there have been 112 aviation-related accidents at RHV or within a 5-mile radius of the airport, as shown in Table 20. Of these 112 accidents, 72 occurred on the airport property. As a result of these 112 accidents, 33 persons suffered minor injuries, 12 persons suffered serious injuries, and 11 persons were killed. All of the injuries or fatalities involved persons in aircraft; no persons on the ground have been injured or killed. TABLE 20 REID-HILLVIEW ACCIDENT SUMMARY 1964- 1994 On.Airport Number of Accidents Number of Minor Injuries Number of Serious Injuries Number of Fatalities 72 7 1 1 "Defined as within 5 miles of the airport. Off-Airport" 40 26 11 10 Total 112 33 12 11 Sources:SRI Intemational, National Transportation Safety Board The accident rate at RHV (1980-1991) was 1.46 accidents per 100,000 operations. This rate was approximately one-half that of the national general aviation accident rate for that same period. The accident rate at RHV is higher than that of SJC and the Bay Area average, but is slightly lower than at Palo Alto Airport. The SRI study also found that Bay Area airports, individually and in aggregate, have total and off-airport accident rates of about one-half the national aggregate average. SRI attributes the lower accident rate at RHV to a number of factors including: 1) weather conditions are conducive to general aviation, 2) RHV is a well laid-out facility, 3) RHV is sited in open terrain, 4) RHV has a control tower, and 5) RHV has a rather homogeneous mixture of aircraft. Risk due to Mid-Air Collisions The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has identified 724 mid-air collision accidents in the United States between 1964 and 1991, an average of about 28 per year. These collisions occur at lower frequencies (i.e., roughly 3 in 10,000,000 operations) than other general aviation accidents. These 724 collisions resulted in 1,589 fatalities, all but 26 of which were to aircraft occupants. Of the 26 deaths to persons on the ground, 22 occurred in two accidents, each of which involved a collision between a general aviation aircraft and an air carrier aircraft.26 Therefore, nationwide, on average, approximately one ground Z~The number of injuries and fatalities arising from air carrier involvement indicates that the larger, falling parts from an air carrier aircraft are more hazardous to persons on the ground than are falling parts from lighter general aviation aircraft. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 63 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR fatality a year occurs from a mid-air collision. With this low frequency, SRI was not able to forecast such an event in the vicinity of RHV with any confidence. Air carrier aircraft were involved in 22 mid-air collisions during the 1964 through 1991 period, which is a rate of less than one per year. Again, SRI was unable to forecast such a rare occurrence in the vicinity of RHV or SJC with any statistical confidence. Aviation Accident Data Compared to Non-Aviation Data Accident rates and statistics can be difficult to understand without some context. The following data are provided for the purpose of assisting the reader in comparing aviation- related risks to other risks: In 1992, there were 319 motor vehicle accidents at the 20 study intersections around RHV (see Figure 9), 28% of which involved injuries.27 In 1992, there were 15,270 motor vehicle accidents in San Jose, resulting in 6,691 injuries and 40 fatalities.28 Death rates in the United States per 100,000 population in 1993 were as follows: 286.9 due to heart disease, 205.8 due to cancer, 16.3 due to motor vehicle accidents, 9.9 due to homicides, 5.2 due to accidental falls, 2.5 due to accidental poisonings, 1.9 due to drownings, 0.27 due to general aviation accidents, and 0.01 due to airline/commuter airline accidents.’-9 The aviation-related data include deaths to persons on-board aircraft and to persons on the ground. 2.Thresholds of Significance for Public Safety Impacts For this project, the thresholds of significance for a public safety impact are defined as follows: 1 ) the project will create a substantial safety hazard for persons living or working in the project area, or 2) the project will create a substantial safety hazard in either the area’s airspace or at another airport. 3.Public Safety Impacts Methodology The SRI study assessed the risk to persons living or working within a 5-mile radius of RHV due to general aviation activity. The primary question studied was "what is the statistical probability that persons on the ground near RHV (or another airport due to aircraft relocation :TSource: City of San Jose - see Table 35 of Appendix B of this EIR. ’SSource: City of San Jose - see Table 46 of Appendix E of this EIR. 29Sources: National Safety Council, National Transportation Safety Board, National Center for Health Statistics. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 64 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR if RHV is closed) will be seriously injured or killed as the result of a general aviation accident?". The SKI study also estimated the likelihood of non-aviation accidents and fatalities arising from possible redevelopment of the RHV property, and compared those likelihoods to those associated with continued use of the site as an airport. SKI compiled both national and local general aviation accident data for their study from sources that included the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), National Safety Council, FAA, and local airport records. Data on non-aviation accidents, primarily motor vehicle accidents, were provided by the City of San Jose. These data were used to calculate statistical safety risks, based upon the projected activity levels at KI-IV in year 2000. [Note: Readers who desire details on the SKI methodology should refer to Appendix E.] Results of Risk Assessment Risk if Airport Stays Open Table 21 presents the results of the SKI risk assessment for persons living or working within a 5-mile radius of RHV, assuming the airport remains open. The data in Table 21 correspond to the projected levels of operations at RHV in year 2000, taking into account the various master plan options presently under consideration at SJC. As noted above, the data are based upon local and national general aviation accident rates. TABLE 21 STATISTICAL RISK FROM GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY AT RHV IN YEAR 2000 ASSUMING THE AIRPORT REMAINS OPEN lTotal Number of Accidents # of Off-Airport Accidents Total Number of Injuries # of On-Board Injuries & Fatalities # of On-Airport, On the Ground Injuries & Fatalities # of Off-Airport, On the Ground Fatalities # of Off-Airport, On the Ground Injuries Note: Number of Annual Aircraft Operations at RHV 199,000 213,900 241,400 (sJc Alt. B)(SJC Alt. A)(SJC Master Plan) 2.504 2.905 3.123 3.524 0.827 1.164 1.703 2.397 171,500 (No Project @ SJC) 1.678 0.008 0.004 0.959 1.031 1.976 2.124 1.947 2.092 0.009 0.009 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.0140.011 Off-Airport data are for the area within a 5-mile radius of RHV. 2.361 0.011 0.006 0.016 Source:SKI Intemational (1993), David J. Powers & Associates (1995 update). REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 65 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR The data in Table 21 show that there is a statistical probability of between 2.5 and 3.5 general aviation accidents occurring in year 2000 at RHV or within 5 miles of the airport. The likelihood of an accident occurring on the airport is twice the likelihood of an accident occurring off the airport. Most of the injuries or deaths due to these accidents would occur to those on-board the aircraft. The forecast number of injuries to persons on the ground who are not on the airport property is between 0.011 and 0.016. The forecast number of deaths to persons on the ground who are not on the airport property is between 0.004 and 0.006. For purposes of comparison, the SRI study calculated some expected injuries and fatalities in the year 2000 within the same 5-mile radius of RHV due to other accidental causes not related to general aviation accidents. These injuries and fatalities would occur irrespective of any decision regarding the status of Reid-Hillview Airport. The number of injuries due to motor vehicle accidents is projected to be 3,142. The projected numbers of fatalities are as follows: 19 due to motor vehicle accidents, 38 due to murder, 19 due to falls, 8 due to poisoning, 7 due to drowning, and 4 due to fires/burns. Risk if Airport is Closed If RHV is closed, the risk of injury or death due to a general aviation accident in the vicinity of the airport would be lower than if the airport was to remain open. [Note: The risk would not be zero, however, because some portions of the RHV area are within the airport traffic area for SJC. a factor which was not incorporated into the SRI data.] However, this benefit would be offset by increased risks in the vicinity of those airports to which the planes from RHV would be relocated to. If SJC adopts its proposed preferred alternative Master Plan and RHV closes (i.e., the worst-case cumulative scenario), South County and Palo Alto Airports would each see a statistical increase of two accidents in year 2000, over that which would otherwise likely occur. Risk due to Redevelopment of Airport Property SRI calculated the number of traffic accidents and injuries which would, be expected if the airport were to be closed and redeveloped, and compared those numbers to those associated with leaving the airport open. Since redevelopment of the airport property with a park would generate roughly as many vehicle trips as does the airport, there would essentially be no difference in the projected number of accidents between these two scenarios. Redevelopment of the airport property with residential uses would result in more traffic and, therefore, would result in 14 additional traffic accidents each year (6 of which would involve injuries) at the 20 study intersections (see Figure 9), as compared to those which would occur if the airport remained open. Redevelopment of the airport property with industrial/commercial uses would result in 26 additional traffic accidents each year (11 of which would involve injuries) at the 20 study intersections, as compared to those which would occur if the airport remained open. SRI calculated an 11- to 18-times greater likelihood of an automobile,related fatality at one of these 20 intersections from these two redevelopment scenarios, than of an on-the-ground fatality arising from a general aviation accident. ~ID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 66 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Conclusion on Public Safety Impacts Based upon the above analysis, it is concluded that keeping RHV open would not present a significant public safety risk. In addition, taking into account the thresholds of significance listed on page 64, it is concluded that the proposed closure of RHV would not result in any significant safety-related impacts. Further, redevelopment of the airport property with any of the three identified land use scenarios would not result in any significant safety-related impacts. 4.Mitigation for Public Safety, Impacts No mitigation is warranted or required since the proposed project will not result in any significant public safety impacts. F.VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 1.Existing Setting Most airports, including RHV, are devoid of any substantial vegetation for aviation safety reasons. At RHV, there are few trees on the property, with the exception of those found on the east side of the airport near the Eastridge Little League baseball field. Most of the vegetation on the property is comprised of weedy, invasive, and ruderal grasses and plants. These species include such varieties as barley, Italian rye grass, curly dock, spinach, wild mustard, toad rush, prickly lettuce, yellow star-thistle, Australian saltbush, plantain, and hayfield tarweed. RHV contains optimum habitat for the Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicuIaria), which the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) has listed as a "Species of Special Concern". The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has also listed the Burrowing Owl as a "level 2 candidate" for listing t~nder the federal Endangered Species Act. Although the Burrowing ~urro~ing Owl is not formally designated as threatened or endangered by either the state or federal governments, these designations recognize that populations of the Burrowing Owl have been declining due to loss of habitat from development, and that extinction could potentially occur if measures are not taken to protect the species. A recent survey prepared during 1991-93 by the Institute for Bird Populations estimated the Burrowing Owl population in Santa Clara County and north-central California to be not more than 500 pairs. A more precise sfirvey in 1994 by H. T. Harvey & Associates estimated approximately 400 Burrowing Owls in the north and central San Jose area. RE1D-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 67 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR The Burrowing Owl typically occurs in areas which are flat and open (i.e., where the tree canopy does not cover more than 30% of the ground surface) with low-growing vegetation. Burrows, which provide protection, shelter, and nests, are an essential component of this species’ habitat. Burrowing Owls typically use burrows made by ground squirrels and badgers, but they also use man-made structures such as culverts or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. A Burrowing Owl survey and habitat assessment by H. T. Harvey & Associates was completed at RHV on the mornings of November 3, 4, and 11, 1995 (see Appendix F). Two Burrowing Owls were observed at RHV. At least 74 active and inactive ground squirrel burrows were observed on the airfield itself, while another 293 active burrows were observed in a field on the airport property near Capitol Expressway and Tully Road. The maintenance of the airfield for aircraft by periodic mowing also keeps the site suitable for the owls)° At least six Burrowing Owls have been observed on the RHV site within the past 2-3 years. Six owls were observed at RHV in April of 1985. Three owls were observed at RHV in July of 1983. Given the optimal habitat at RHV (_100 unpaved acres on the 180-acre airport site), it is likely that the site could support additional pairs of Burrowing Owls in the future, especially considering their historical numbers on the site. 2.Thresholds of Significance for Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts For this project, the thresholds of significance for a vegetation and wildlife impact are defined as follows: 1) the project would directly affect or indirectly affect (i.e., through habitat loss) a candidate or listed threatened or endangered species; or 2) the project would directly affect species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (e.g., burrowing owls and nesting raptors); or 3) the project would result in an impact of greater than one acre of sensitive habitat (e.g., wetlands, riparian areas, oak woodland, serpentine grassland); or 4) the project would interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; or 5) the project would substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife, or plant species or cause a species to drop below self-sustaining levels. 3.Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts In the short-term, closure of RHV would not have any impacts on vegetation and wildlife because no changes to the airport property would occur. However, any redevelopment of the airport property would result in a significant vegetation and wildlife impact because individual Burrowing Owls would be directly affected, and because up to +_100 acres of optimum Burrowing Ow! habitat would be lost. The exact number of acres of habitat to be lost would depend upon plans for any future development. [Note: A park with paths, lawns, picnic areas, etc. would not constitute good burrowing owl habitat.] ~Similarty, SJC supports an active population of Burrowing Owls. In 1994, there were 8 breeding pairs and 47 individuals (adults & juveniles) counted in an annual census at SJC (City of San Jose, May 1995). REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 68 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 4.Mitigation for Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts Individual Burrowing Owls are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Prior to any construction on the RHV site associated with redevelopment, a Burrowing Owl survey would be required. Any owls located on the site could not be moved or disturbed during the nesting season. Outside of the nesting season, mitigation would consist of relocating the individual Burrowing Owls to a suitable site. All survey and relocation work would be required to be undertaken by a qualified biologist under the terms of a permit from the CDFG and!or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Mitigation for the loss of biologically-important habitat typically involves the creation of replacement habitat and/or some action to permanently preserve similar habitat. For example, when a project impacts wetlands or streamside (i.e., riparian) vegetation, an applicant is usually required to create replacement habitat on-site or as close as possible to the impact location. For Burrowing Owls, the CDFG regularly requests on-site preservation of a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of owls or each unpaired bird impacted by a project. Where on-site mitigation cannot be provided, the CDFG requests habitat replacement ratios of up to 3:1. The size of the resident population of Burrowing Owls at RHV when any redevelopment of the site occurs, and the degree of impact of any redevelopment, will affect the degree of mitigation necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. For example, the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios being evaluated in this EIR would each maximize use of the RHV site and, therefore, would not likely allow for much (if any) on-site habitat preservation. This would require the purchase of land off-site for habitat creation and/or preservation. Given land costs in Santa Clara County, the cost of this mitigation would be likely substantial, in view of the considerable number of acres of Burrowing Owl habitat which could be lost due to this redevelopment. Given this substantial cost. a more practical and feasible mitigation could involve a redesign of a proposed project in which some percentage of on-site habitat is preserved. G.BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS 1.Existing Setting According to County airport records, there are approximately 29 business tenants located at RHV. Most of these businesses are aviation-related (referred to as Fixed Base Operators in aviation parlance), providing such services as flight instruction, aircraft fueling, aircraft sales and maintenance, aircraft charters, and sales of aviation- related supplies and equipment. The list of tenants at RHV also includes Squadron 80 of the Civil Air Patrol. There are also a number of non-aviation businesses which are tenants at RHV, including two churches, a software firm, a printing firm, and an ambulance/paramedic firm. This list does not include an unknown number of businesses which are among the County’s 261 tenants who rent hangars, shelters, and/or tie-downs for their aircraft at Reid-Hillview. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 69 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR o Threshold of Significance for Business Displacement Impacts For this project, the threshold of significance for a business displacement impact is defined as follows: the project will require the displacement of 10 or more businesses. Business Displacement Impacts The proposed closure of RHV will have a significant business displacement impact because it will displace approximately 29 business tenants at the airport. This impact does not include the impact on an unknown number of businesses which are among the County’s 261 tenants who rent hangars, shelters, and!or tie-downs for their aircraft at Reid-Hillview. Mitigation for Business Displacement Impacts Mitigation for the displacement of businesses by a project typically includes the payment of monies to the affected business owner to cover various relocation costs and, where applicable, the buyout of existing leases. This mitigation is included as a part of this proposed project. In many cases, businesses which are impacted by a given project are able to reopen at a new location. However, in this case, it is likely that many of the existing aviation-related businesses would likely go out of business if RHV is closed. The reason for this is that there is very limited space at other airports (most notably, South County and Palo Alto) where these businesses could reopen. Therefore, this business displacement impact would be significant and unavoidable for this project. However, the non-aviation businesses displaced by the proposed project should have little trouble in reopening at a new location in the area. AIR QUALITY 1.Existing Setting The ambient air quality of the San Francisco Bay Area has been improving in recent years due to the regulation of emissions from stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, gasoline service stations, etc.) and the regulation of emissions from mobile sources (primarily motor vehicles). In fact, the Bay Area was recently declared an "attainment area" by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with regard to compliance with the federal Clean Air Act for both ozone and carbon monoxide. Nonetheless, as the region continues to grow, regulations continue to be phased-in and enforced so as to avoid deterioration of air quality. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of several important pollutants which are associated with urban development, and which are the subject of analysis in this EIR. Ozone is the most prevalent of a class of photochemical oxidants formed in the atmosphere. The creation of ozone is a result of complex chemical reactions between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunshine. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not released REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 70 MARCH !996 DRAFF EIR directly into the amaosphere from any sources. The major sources of oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons, known as ozone precursors, are combustion sources such as factories and automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels. The health effects of ozone are eye irritation and damage to lung tissues. Ozone also damages some materials such as rubber, and may damage plants and crops. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels, and its main source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Carbon monoxide’s health effects are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high concentrations, CO reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities. 2.Threshold of Significance for Air Quality Impacts For this project, the threshold of significance for an air quality impact is defined as follows: project-generated emissions would be in excess of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance, as compared to "base case" conditions. These thresholds are 150 pounds per day of hydrocarbons, 150 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, and 550 pounds per day of CO. 3.Air Quality Impacts Methodology The firm of MO’C Physics Applied was retained to calculate the total volume of pollutants which would be emitted under the various scenarios which are being evaluated in this EIR. Consistent with the other EIR analyses, the year 2000 is the analysis year for air quality. The complete air quality analysis is Appendix G of this EIR. Emissions due to ground traffic were calculated using the California Air Resource Board’s "EMFAC7F" computer model. An average trip length of 10 miles was assumed, which is typical of vehicular trips in Santa Clara County. The number of vehicular trips assumed is that which is shown in Table 15 of this EIR. Emissions due to aircraft were calculated for what is known as a landing-takeoff (LTO) cycle. The LTO cycle, as defined by the EPA, accounts for all aircraft emissions which occur during the following modes: descent from 3,000 feet above ground level, landing, taxiing to the gate from the runway, taxiing from the gate to the runway, takeoff, and climbout to 3,000 feet above ground level. Information provided by RHV management as to the type of aircraft which are based at RHV was used, as was the number of annual operations (see Table 4). Results of Air Quality Analysis The results of the air quality analysis are shown in Table 22. Compared to the base case, which is defined as leaving RHV open and no downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC, all of the other scenarios would result in an increase in emissions, except for the RE1D-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 71 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR redevelopment of the airport property as a park. Using the BAAQMD’s significance criteria described above, a significant increase in emissions would occur for all three pollutants if RHV were closed and redeveloped with either residential or industrial/commercial uses. Closure of the airport without any redevelopment would, in the short-term, be beneficial since it would eliminate the emissions which presently are associated with the operation of the airport. TABLE 22 COMPARISON OF YEAR 2000 EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Scenario RHV Open & No Downsizing of GA at SJC (Base Case) RHV Open & SJC Master Plan adopted RHV Open & SJC Alternative A adopted RHV Open & SJC Alternative B adopted RHV Closed & No Redevelopment iRHV Closed & Site Redeveloped as Park ~HV Closed & Site Redeveloped as Residential RHV Closed & Site Redeveloped as Indust./Comm. Carbon Monoxide 3,836 5,397 (+1,562) 4,795 (+959) 4,438 (+603) 0 (-3,836) 219 (-3,616) 4,521 (+685) 7,425 (+3,589) Nitrogen Oxides 23 32 (+9) 29 (+6) 27 (+4) 0 (-23) 16 (-7) 312 (+289) 512 (+488) Hydro- carbons 107 134 (+27) 118 (+! 1) 110 (+3) 0 (-107) 14 (-93) 260 (+153) 427 (+321) Numbers in ( ) show the change from the base case. All of the data have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Emissions shown are the totals for both aircraft operations (where applicable) and motor vehicle trips. Other emissions, such as those from space heating, lawn mowing, paints and solvents, etc., are not included as their contribution to the total is relatively minor. Source: MO’C Physics Applied, November 1995. 4.Mitigation for Air Quality Impacts The above analysis identified significant air quality impacts if RHV is closed and redeveloped with residential or industrial/commercial uses. At the time of any redevelopment, a specific project would be required to undergo detailed analysis to determine if project-generated traffic would create situations where local carbon monoxide concentrations would exceed standards. It is unlikely that an exceedance would occur, given recent improvements in air quality and, if an exceedance were to be projected, it could probably be eliminated if the project applicant proposed to institute a trip reduction program. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 72 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR With regard to nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, it is doubtful that both of these impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels (i.e., below a net increase of 150 pounds per day) given their magnitude, even with a trip reduction program. Therefore, this would constitute a significant and unavoidable adverse impact. I.CULTURAL RESOURCES In 1983, Basin Research Associates conducted a cultural resources assessment at RHV in conjunction with a project to expand the airport’s aircraft tie-downs. The analysis included an archival literature search, as well as a surface reconnaissance of the area by a qualified archaeologist. Updated cultural resources assessments were completed in 1987, 1990, and 1993 for the Evergreen Specific Plan Transportation Improvements EIR. These assessments are incorporated by reference into this EIR, and the assessments form the basis for the following discussion.31 1.Existing Setting The 1983 cultural resources assessment found no recorded prehistoric or historic resources in the project area. Further, the 1983 assessment did not find any visual evidence of subsurface archaeological resources at RHV. The updated cultural resources assessments also found no archival or visual evidence of prehistoric or historic resources at RHV. The closest area of known prehistoric cultural resources is in the vicinity of the intersection of Capitol Expressway and Quimby Road, over V2 mile from RHV. The closest historic structures are located along Capitol Expressway near Story Road, over 1/2 mile from RHV. 2.Thresholds of Significance for Impacts to Cultural Resources For this project, the thresholds of significance for a cultural resources impact are defined as follows: 1) the project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, or 2) the project will damage an important archaeological resource. 3.Impacts to Cultural Resources There would be no direct impact of the closure of RHV’upon cultural resources in the short- term, since no redevelopment is presently proposed. Further, based upon the results of the cultural resources assessments described above, any future redevelopment on the airport property would have no impact on historic structures since there are none on the site. The likelihood of any impact upon archaeological resources due to site redevelopment is also considered to be remote, based upon the assessments. This conclusion notwithstanding, the 1983 assessment at RHV recommended that monitoring (by an archaeologist) of all subsurface 3~Copies of these assessments are available for review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, at Reid-Hillview Airport, 2500 Cunningham Avenue, San Jose (contact person: Larry Feldman at (408) 929-1060). REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 73 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR activities associated with redevelopment, including grading of the site, be undertaken as a precautionary measure. Based upon this discussion, taking into account the thresholds of significance listed above, it is concluded that the proposed project - including any future site redevelopment - would not have any impact upon cultural resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required or warranted. J.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1.Existing Setting The 180-acre RHV site contains nine underground fuel storage tanks. On the west side of the airfield near Cunningham Avenue there are two 10,000-gallon tanks. On the east side of the airfield, there are five 10,000-gallon tanks, one 2,000-gallon tank, and one 1,000-gallon tank.3-’ It is not known whether any soil and!or groundwater contamination has occurred in connection with these tanks. If contamination is found at the time any of the tanks are removed or replaced, a regulator3, process is in place under the direction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) in which contamination would be remediated by the property and/or tank owner. [Note: This process has led to detection and ongoing remediation of over 1,700 fuel leak sites in Santa Clara County, according to the SCVWD’s "Fuel Leak Site Activity Report".] In addition to the above-described nine fuel tanks, underground fuel tanks associated with a former aviation gasoline refueling island (located southwest of the terminal building adjacent to the outer taxiway) were removed in 1992. Both soil and groundwater contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons were found to be present. As a result, groundwater monitoring wells were drilled and are monitored on a quarterly basis. In an effort to restore groundwater quality, a groundwater extraction/treatment system was installed.33 Remediation continues at the present time, and is under active oversight by the SCVWD. Remediation of the contamination is anticipated to be completed in 1997. Thresholds of Significance for Hazardous Materials Impacts For this project, the thresholds of significance for a hazardous materials impacts are defined as follows: 1) the project is proposed on a site on which there is known or suspected contamination from hazardous materials, or 2) the project involves the use, storage, transportation, or disposal of hazardous materials such that there may be a potential health hazard. 3:Source: Memo to David Powers & Associates from Larry Feldman, Director of Aviation, 9/26/95. 33Source: "Work Plan - 2-Phase High Vacuum Extraction at RHV", Canonie Environmental, 7/94. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 74 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 3.Hazardous Materials Impacts In the short-term, the closure of RHV would not have any hazardous materials impacts since no redevelopment of the property is presently proposed. If RHV were to be closed, the ongoing cleanup of the existing onsite contamination would continue until levels of groundwater contamination fall to levels which are acceptable under regulatory standards. Any redevelopment of the airport site would have significant hazardous materials impacts because that redevelopment would be proposed on a site where there is known contamination. Further, although it is not known whether any of the nine existing underground fuel storage tanks at RHV are leaking, such a possibility is considered likely because leakage associated with older, single-walled tanks is common. [Note: This is one reason why many gasoline service stations are replacing their existing storage tanks with newer, double-walled tanks.] Redevelopment of the airport property with industrial uses would have a potentially significant hazardous materials impact if hazardous materials are used and/or stored on the site due to the proximity of nearby residences and schools. 4.Mitigation for Hazardous Materials Impacts The following measures will reduce the significant hazardous materials impacts associated with any future redevelopment of the RHV site to a less-than-significant level: Prior to any redevelopment of the site, ongoing remediation should continue until levels of groundwater contamination fall to levels which are acceptable under regulator)’ standards. Prior to any redevelopment of the site, the nine existing fuel tanks should be removed and testing for soil and/or groundwater contamination should occur. If contamination is found, remediation should occur under the direction of the SCVWD until cleanup has achieved satisfactory results. Under the industrial redevelopment scenario, all businesses which use and/or store hazardous materials on their premises shall comply with existing federal, state, and local codes pertaining to these substances. Compliance with these codes will reduce any potential hazards to nearby land uses to acceptable levels. REID-H]LLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSUR~75 MARCH !996 DRAFT EIR K. GEOLOGY 1.Existing Setting The topography of the project area is relatively fiat, with no nearby topographic features of importance. The airport’s elevation is 133 feet above mean sea level. The soils in the vicinity of RHV are generally composed of the Yolo soil series which are underlain by alluvium and bedrock. Yolo soils are quite fertile, having moderately-slow to moderate permeability and a low runoff potential (U.S. Soil Conservation Service). These soils are moderately expansive and are classified as having a high potential for seismically-induced liquefaction. Should liquefaction occur, the chances of vertical or horizontal ground failure occurring is moderately high to high. Erosion and landslide potentials at RHV are listed as "none", since the area is generally flat (Cooper-Clark & Associates, 1974). The project area, along with the entire San Francisco Bay Region, is located in an area which is subject to severe groundshaking during a major earthquake. The most recent earthquake of note in the project area was the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Although there are no active faults runnihg across RHV, there are a number of faults in the vicinity. The closest are the Evergreen and Quimby Faults, located 1.4 miles and 1.5 miles east of the airport, respectively. Distances to other faults from RHV are as follows: 2.5 miles to the Hayward Fault. 4.2 miles to the Calaveras Fault, and 14.3 miles to the San Andreas Fault. 2.Thresholds of Significance for Geologic Impacts For this project, the thresholds of significance for significant geologic impacts are defined as follows: 1) The project is proposed on a site with geologic conditions which may pose a substantial hazard to property and/or human life (e.g., an active fault, an active landslide, steep slopes which are unstable, etc.); or 2) The project would expose people or property to geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety design techniques. 3.Geologic Impacts In the short-term, the closure of RHV would not have any geologic impacts since no redevelopment of the property is presently proposed. Redevelopment of the airport property with a park would also have no geologic impacts since no structures or buildings of note would be constructed under that scenario. Redevelopment of the property with residential or industrial/commercial uses would have less-than-significant geologic impacts. This last statement is based on the fact that there are no onsite geologic conditions present which cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety design techniques. This includes the above-identified high liquefaction potential which can be mitigated through standard practice, based upon the recommendations of a site-specific geotechnical investigation. Such an investigation would routinely be undertaken at the time any specific redevelopment proposal(s) are put forth. Based upon this analysis, no mitigation for geologic impacts is warranted or required. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 76 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR L. HYDROLOGY 1.Existing Setting Except for a small area near the intersection of Capitol Expressway and Ocala Avenue, RHV is not located within any 100-Year Floodplain(s) (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Except for this one small area, the 100-Year Floodplain of nearby Silver Creek does not extend onto the RHV property as Capitol Expressway generally forms the westerly boundary of the floodplain in this area. No creeks or waterways cross the RHV site. Stormwater runoff from the project area flows into storm drains which, in turn, discharge into Lower Silver and Coyote Creeks. These creeks are now operating at or near capacity during and immediately after major storms. Because of this, new development in an area which substantially increases runoff is often required to construct onsite stormwater detention ponds. These detention facilities store the stormwater onsite until after peak flows have subsided. 2.Thresholds of Significance for Hydrologic Impacts For this project, the thresholds of significance for a hydrologic impact are defined as follows: 1) the project would result in a significant potentia! for flood-related property loss or hazard to human life; or 2) the project would result in a substantial increase in stormwater runoff. 3.Hydrologic Impacts In the short-term, the closure of RHV would not have any hydrologic impacts since no redevelopment of the property is presently proposed. Redevelopment of the airport property with a park would likely have a beneficial hydrologic impact because the volume of runoff from the site would be less than it i.s today. This assumes that a park redevelopment scenario would remove the existing buildings and paved areas of the airport and replace them with non-paved (e.g., grassy) areas. The redevelopment of the airport property with residential or commercial/industrial uses would have a potentially significant hydrologic impact. This conclusion is based upon the fact that the RHV site is located in an area in which the downstream facilities are operating at or near capacity. Since these redevelopment scenarios would substantially increase runoff due to additional covering of the site with buildings, roads, and parking, the additional runoff is likely to result in potential flooding downstream during peak storm flows. 4.Mitigation for Hydrologic Impacts Under the residential and industrial/commercial redevelopment scenarios, construction of onsite stormwater detention facilities would likely be required to reduce flooding impacts to a less-than-significant level. The size of such facilities would be determined based upon a detailed hydraulic analysis to be prepared at the time a specific redevelopment proposal for the site is put forth. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 77 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR M.POPULATION, JOBS, AND HOUSING 1.Existing Setting The following discussion is based primarily upon data contained in the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) publication entitled "Projections ’94". In 1995, the City of San Jose had an estimated population of 889,500 within its Sphere of Influence. The population is projected to increase to 942,000 by the year 2000. San Jose had approximately 278,030 households in its Sphere of Influence in 1995. This number is projected to increase to 296,930 households by the year 2000. The average number of persons per household in San Jose in 1995 was 3.15, an average which is projected to change slightly to 3.13 by the year 2000. Approximately 305,770 jobs were provided within the City of San Jose’s Sphere of Influence in 1995, and projections show an increase to 340,420 jobs by the year 2000. In 1995, the average number of employed persons per household in San Jose was 1.49, an average which is projected to change to 1.58 by the year 2000. The above data show an existing jobs/housing imbalance in San Jose in that there is a surplus of housing in relationship to the number of jobs, using the 1.49 employed-persons-per- household factor. This housing surplus in San Jose is expected to remain in the year 2000, according to the ABAG projections, using the 1.58 employed-persons-per-household factor. This imbalance is the opposite of a number of other cities in Santa Clara County where there is a shortage of housing in relationship to the number of jobs. In general, it is highly desirable for communities to have a balance between jobs and housing because that balance decreases the need for longer, inter-community commuting between one’s residence and one’s job. [Note: The fact that, taken as a whole, the Bay Area has a shortage of housing in relationship to the number of jobs is one reason why there is a sizeable commute to jobs in the Bay Area from outlying residential areas as far away as the San Joaquin Valley.] The number of jobs at RHV is approximately 101. This does not include approximately 25 jobs off the airport property which are directly related to RHV. These numbers are taken from Appendix H, "The Economic Impact of Reid-Hillview Airport". 2.Thresholds of Significance for Population, Jobs, and Housing For this project, the thresholds of significance for a population, jobs, and housing impact are defined as follows: 1) the project will result in substantia! growth or concentration of population, or 2) the project will adversely affect the City’s jobs/housing balance. 3.Population, Jobs, and Housing Impacts In the short-term, the closure of RHV would have a less-than-significant impact on population, jobs, and housing. This statement is based upon the fact that the closure of RHV would directly eliminate 101 jobs within San Jose, which would have the effect of REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 78 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR slightly worsening San Jose’s projected shortage of jobs in relationship to the housing supply in ye.ar 2000. The redevelopment of the RHV site as a park would have a less-than-significant impact on population, jobs, and housing. Assuming that six persons were to be employed at the park, there would be a net loss of approximately 95 jobs, as compared to leaving RHV open. This net loss of 95 jobs would have the effect of slightly worsening San Jose’s projected shortage of jobs in relationship to the supply of housing in year 2000. The redevelopment of the RHV site with residential uses would have a significant impact on population, jobs, and housing. Assuming an average of 3.13 persons per household in San Jose in year 2000, the population on the RHV property under this scenario would be 7,136 persons, which is roughly equivalent to the population of Los Altos Hills, or just less than twice the population of Monte Sereno. This scenario would also substantially worsen San Jose’s projected shortage of jobs in relationship to the supply of housing in year 2000. This imbalance would be further worsened by this scenario because of the loss of the 101 jobs which presently exist on the airport property. The redevelopment of the RHV site with industrial/commercial uses would have a beneficial impact on population, jobs, and housing. Assuming employee generation rates of 20 employees per acre for commercial uses, and one employee per 400 square feet for industrial uses, this scenario would generate 5,827 onsite employees. This would result in a net increase of 5,726 employees, as compared to leaving RHV open. The creation of these jobs on the airport site would substantially lessen San Jose’s jobs/housing imbalance. 4.Mitigation for Population, Jobs, and Housing Impacts The above discussion identified significant impacts upon population, jobs, and housing under the residential redevelopment scenario because the City’s jobs/housing imbalance would be worsened. The only mitigation for this impact would be to find other .sites in the City where additional jobs (beyond that already identified in the General Plan) could be located. This is not considered practical because the City has already completed such a task as a part of its recent General Plan update process. Therefore, this impact is both significant and unavoidable for the residential redevelopment scenario. N. UTILITIES 1.Existing ~gtting Water Service Water service is provided to the RHV area by the San Jose Water Company. Water mains are found in most of the streets in the area, including Cunningham Avenue, Swift Avenue, and Ocala Avenue. REID-H1LLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 79 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Sanitary Sewer Service Sanitary sewer service in the RHV area is provided by the City of San Jose. Sewer lines are located in a number of streets in the area, most of which flow to a trunk line located in King Road. RHV is a relatively minor generator of effluent. Wastewater receives primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment at the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in Alviso. The existing capacity of the WPCP is 167 million gallons per day. The WPCP is presently operating well within its capacity. Storm Sewer Service Stormwater runoff from the RHV site flows into storm drains which are owned and maintained by the City of San Jose. The storm drains, in turn, flow into Lower Silver Creek and Coyote Creek. These creeks are presently operating at or near capacity during and immediately after major storms. Because of this, new development in the area which substantially increases runoff is often required to construct onsite stormwater detention ponds. These detention facilities store the stormwater onsite until after peak flows have subsided. Electric, Natural Gas and Telephone Service Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Company provides electricity and natural gas to the RHV project area. These utilities are provided through a network of above-ground and below- ground facilities. Pacific Bell provides existing telephone service to the area. 2.Thresholds of Significance for Utilities Impacts For this project, the thresholds of significance for utilities impacts are defined as follows: 1) the project will result in a substantial increase in the demand for utilities, or 2) demand generated by the project will exceed capacity or exceed acceptable levels of service. 3.Impacts on Utilities In the short-term, the closure of RHV would result in either no impact or a slight beneficial impact upon all utilities. Even though RHV does not presently place a substantial demand on utilities, that demand would decrease if the airport were to be closed and the site is vacant. On the other hand, if the airport is closed and the 180-acre site is redeveloper, demand could be significantly higher than it is under existing conditions, depending upon which scenario is being considered. The following discussion describes how each of the three possible redevelopment scenarios would affect utilities. Water Service Redevelopment of the RI-IV property with any of the land uses being evaluated in this EIR would likely have a less-than-significant impact upon water service. The word "likely" in this conclusion is highlighted because no definitive determination can be made without detailed REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 80 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR project plans being available, followed by a fire department analysis to determine required water flows for flrefighting purposes.3~ Based upon consultation with the San Jose Water Company, it is the required water flow for firefighting purposes which determines to what extent (if any) offsite improvements to the water delivery system are needed to serve the site. Typical offsite improvements could involve increasing the size of existing water lines in the project area in order to provide sufficient fire flows.35 Sanitary Sewer Service Redevelopment of the airport property with a park would have a less-than-significant impact upon the sanitary sewer system. This statement is based on the fact that a park would be a small generator of effluent, perhaps even less than the existing airport. Redevelopment of the airport property with either residential or industrial/commercial uses would very likely have a significant impact on the area’s sanitary sewer system. This conclusion is based upon the fact that the area’s sanitary sewer lines were sized based upon the RHV property being used as an airport, which is a relatively minor generator of effluent. Construction of either the residential scenario or industrial/commercial scenario would be a substantially more intense use of the site, with regard to the generation of effluent.36 It is likely that this increase in intensity would require offsite improvements such as the construction of a new sewer line to connect the site to the trunk line in King Road. It must be emphasized that the extent of any offsite improvements (if any) would be determined only after a specific development proposal is submitted and a detailed analysis is completed. The availability of capacity would also be dependent upon the size and number of other new development proposals in this area of San Jose. Storm Sewer Service Please see the discussion of hydrologic/flooding impacts on page 77. Electric, Natural Gas & Telephone Services Redevelopment of the RHV property with any of the land uses being evaluated in this EIR would have a less-than-significant impact upon electric, natural gas, and telephone services. Although demand under the residential and industrial!commercial scenarios would notably exceed that which occurs under existing conditions, the provision of these services within an urbanized environment such as the project area is typically not a substantial problem. Of course, these scenarios would likely require the extension of services onto the property, as well as possibly increasing the size of existing utility lines in the immediate area. The ~Using generation factors provided by the San Jose Public Works Department, the residential scenario would use 400,000 gallons of water each day and the industrial/commercial scenario would use 685,000 gallons per day. These numbers are not fire flows. No generation rates were available for a park use. -~-~Source: Gar3’ Bentson, San Jose Water Company, personal communication, 1/17196. "~6According to sewage generation figures used by the City of San Jose, the residential scenario would generate roughly 370,000 gallons/day, and the industrial/commercial scenario would generate roughly 595,000 gallons per day. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 81 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR upgrading of utility lines could result in some short-term construction impacts if, for example, a trench needs to be excavated in a street for an underground line. 4.Mitigation for Impacts on Utilities The above discussion concluded that the redevelopment of the airport property with either residential or industrial/commercial land uses would likely result in a significant impact upon the existing sanitary sewer system. Mitigation to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level would consist of the upgrade of offsite line(s) or the installation of a new line to handle the projected sewage flow. Without a detailed analysis, the extent of offsite improvements which would be needed cannot be determined at this time. However, it is reasonable to assume that the construction of a new sewer line in an east-west street between the project site and the existing sewer trunk line in King Road would be a likely requirement. It is not known whether or not any upgrade to the trunk line in King Road would be necessary. O.URBAN SERVICES [Introductory Note: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not consider economic or social impacts to be environmental impacts unless those impacts, in turn, cause a physical impact on the environment. This aspect of CEQA was reinforced in a 1995 Appellate Court decision (Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of the University of California) which applied this rule to conclude that overcrowding of local schools due to a project does not require CEQA analysis and mitigation unless the overcrowding would predictably lead to the construction of new facilities that would, in turn, cause environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts on public services are not environmental impacts under CEQA unless they directly lead to physical impacts. This statement notwithstanding, an EIR may disclose economic and social information, as long as those effects are not treated as significant effects on the environment. It is this context in which the following discussion is presented.] 1.Fire Services The San Jose Fire Department responds to all fires, hazardous materials spills, and medical emergencies (including injury accidents) in San Jose, including RHV. The closest fire stations are Stations 16 and 24, located on King Road (at Cunningharn Avenue) and Aborn Road, respectively. Response times to RHV from these stations are within the Fire Department’s response time goals. Existing calls for service to the airport by the Fire Department are infrequent; most calls are associated with the occasional aircraft accident.37 In the short-term, the closure of RHV would slightly lessen the existing demand for the services of the fire department in this area of San Jose. However, because the airport does not require many calls for service, this benefit would be negligible. 37Sotlrce: Walter Fujczak, San Jose Fire Department, personal communication, 9125195. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 82 MARCH !996 DRAFT. EIR If the site is redeveloped as a park, the primary demand upon the fire department would be responding to medical emergencies. Compared to existing conditions, this would not place a substantial demand upon the resources of the fire department, as this demand would be somewhat offset by the fact that the fire department would not be responding to aircraft accidents, and because the park would have far fewer buildings than does the airport. If the site is redeveloped as residential or industrial/commercial uses, calls for service to the fire department would be notably greater than they are under existing conditions. However, because the site is located within acceptable response times from the nearest fire stations, the fire department does not view this increased demand as significant. The fire department would, however, require that onsite water flows for these redevelopment scenarios meet the current standards for firefighting purposes. 2.Police Services RHV is served by the San Jose Police Department. Existing calls for service to the airport by the Police Department are infrequent; most calls are associated with the occasional property crimes (e.g., vandalism and burglary). In the short-term, the closure of RHV would slightly lessen the existing demand for the services of the police department in this area of San Jose. However, because the airport does not require many calls for service, this benefit would be negligible. According to a preliminary analysis prepared by the police department,38 the effect of a park on the RHV site upon police services would be minimal. The Police Department requests, however, that the park’s design be coordinated with their Crime Prevention Unit to ensure that the site does not become a magnet for cruising activities. According to the police department’s analysis, the effect of residential uses on the RHV site upon police services would be substantial. Over 4,000 calls for emergency police services would be generated annually by this site under the residential redevelopment scenario. This would, in turn, require about 15 sworn positions and four civilian support positions in the police department to maintain existing service levels in the area. Without these additional personnel, this scenario would result in a substantial adverse effect upon the level of police services in this area of San Jose. According to the police department’s analysis, the effect of industrial/commercial uses on the RHV site upon police services would not be substantial. Roughly 300 to 400 calls for police services annually would be generated by this scenario. About one sworn position and 1/3 of a civilian support position would be needed to handle this volume and, at the same time. maintain existing service levels. This scenario is not expected to affect noticeably the level of police services in this area of San Jose. 3~This discussion is based upon a preliminary analysis completed by the San Jose Police Department. The results of the analysis were transmitted to David Powers & Associates in a letter dated 12/6/95. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 83 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 3.Park and Recreation Services There are several public parks in the RHV area, including Hillview Park to the north of the airport, Lake Cunningham Park to the east of the airport, and Welch Park to the west of the airport. The Hank Lopez Community Center, owned and operated by the City of San Jose, is located within Hitlview Park. In addition, there are a number of school playgrounds in the area including, Smith, Meyer, Overfelt, Fischer, and Cassell. Redevelopment of the RHV property with a park would have a beneficial effect on parks and recreation because a new 180-acre facility would be added to the existing park system. Redevelopment of the RHV property with industrial/commercial uses would not have a substantial effect upon park and recreation facilities. This conclusion is based upon the fact that these types of land uses (in contrast to residential uses) are not typically generators of substantial demand for parks. Redevelopment of the RHV property with residential uses would have a substantial impact upon park and recreation facilities. The San Jose General Plan calls for 3.5 acres of neighborhood park lands per 1,000 population within walking distance of the project. Since the residential redevelopment scenario for the RHV site would have a population of 7,136 persons, there would be a need for a new +-25-acre park, based upon the General Plan goal. This is a sig-nificant environmental impact because the construction of a park would be a physical change to the environment with its own set of environmental impacts. The easiest way to mitigate for this impact would be to include a park on the site as a part of the overall development plan for the site. 4.Librar ,v Services The Hillview Branch of the San Jose Public Library system is located within Hillview Park, directly north of RHV. It is one of 17 branch libraries in San Jose. The geographic area served by the Hillview Branch contains a population of roughly 85,800 persons (1990 census data). The size of the Hillview Branch is _7,100 square feet)9 Redevelopment of the RHV property with either a park or with industrial/commercial uses would not have a substantial effect upon the demand for library services. This conclusion is based upon the fact that these types of land uses (unlike residential uses) do not generate a substantial demand for this type of service. Redevelopment of the RHV property with residential uses would have a notable effect upon the demand for library services. The San Jose General Plan calls for 10,000 square feet of library space per 36,000 population. Since the residential redevelopment scenario for the RHV site would have a population of 7,136 persons, there would be a need for an additional +_2,000 square feet of library space, based upon the General Plan goal. [Note: Using the General Plan goal, the existing Hillview Branch is substantially undersized for the population 3USource: Hanna Slocum, San Jose Library, personal communication, 1/10/96. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 84 MARCH 1996 DR_AFT EIR it currently serves.] Another way of assessing this impact is that this scenario would increase the population currently served by the Hillview Branch by roughly 8%. 5.Schools Existing Conditions Elementary Schools The boundary between two school districts cuts across the middle (approximately) of the RHV site. The northerly portion of the airport lies within the Alum Rock Union School District. The southerly portion of the airport lies within the Evergreen School District. The Alum Rock Union School District operated 19 elementary and six middle schools during the !994-95 school year. Ona districtwide basis in 1994-95, the 25 schools operated at 105% of capacity (15,964 students in 15.152 spaces). The closest elementary schools to RHV (and their 1994-95 operating status) are as follows: Meyer (89% of capacity), Cassell (113% of capacity), Dorsa (112% of capacity), Miller (104% of capacity), and Hubbard (110% of capacity). The closest middle schools to RHV are Fischer (110% of capacity) and Ocala (111% of capacity),a° No new schools are presently planned in this district. The Evergreen School District operated 12 elementary and 3 middle schools during the 1994- 95 school year. The district is presently operating at its capacity of 10,500 students. The closest elementary, schools to RHV are Smith, Whaley, and Holly Oak. The closest middle school to RHV is Ley Va. No new schools are presently planned in this district.4~ High Schools RHV lies within the East Side Union High School District. The district operates 11 high schools and one continuation school. The district is presently operating at over 99% of its capacity of 22.!50 students. The closest high school to RHV is Overfelt. The district is planning one new school with a capacity of 1,800 students on Quimby Road, with a projected opening date of 2002.42 Impacts on Schools Redevelopment of the RHV property with either a parkor industrial/commercial uses would have no direct impact upon schools. These land uses do not directly generate school-aged children, in contrast to residential land uses. a~Source: "Capacities of Schools by Site. 1994-95 School Year", Alum Rock School District, 4/18195. ~’~Source: Evergreen School District. ~:Source: East Side Union High School District, facilities department. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 85 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Redevelopment of the RHV property with residential uses would have a substantial effect upon both elementary and high school districts. The residential scenario would generate a total of approximately 1,854 students, as shown in Table 23. Of this total, 1,185 would be in the East Side Union High School District, 441 would be in the Alum Rock Union School District. and 228 would be in the Evergreen School District. [Note: This analysis assumes that the boundary between the two elementary school districts splits the RHV site into two equal pieces, and that the number of residential units would also be evenly split between the two districts.] Given the existing levels of enrollment in the three affected school districts, which are at or above capacity, these additional students would result in substantial overcrowding in the system. The 669 elementary students generated by the residential scenario are essentially the equivalent of one new elementary school, and the 1,185 high school students are equivalent to roughly 60% of the enrollment at nearby Overfelt High School. As noted above, no new elementary schools are presently planned. One new high school on Quimby Road with a capacity of 1,800 students is scheduled for completion in 2002. This is a significant environmental impact under the residential scenario since the degree of overcrowding will likely directly lead to the construction of a new elementary school. The construction of a school would be a physical change to the environment with its own set of environmental impacts. TABLE 23 STUDENTS GENERATED BY RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENTSCENARIO Alum Rock Union Evergreen East Side Elementary.Elementary"Union High Number of single-family units 360 360 720 Number of multi-family units 780 780 1,560 generation rate for single-family units 0.62 0.20 0.52 generation rate for multi-family units 0.28 0.20 0.52 Number of students - single-family units 223 72 374 Number of students - multi-family units 218 156 811 Total Number of Students 441 228 1,185 Source: Generation rates provided by the school districts, as shown in the San Jose 2020 General Plan EIR. The impact could be mitigated by the payment of a school impact fee. In San Jose, project applicants can either negotiate directly with the affected school district(s), or they can make a "presumptive payment" of $2.67 per square foot for single-family units and $1.93 per square foot for multi-family units. For the residential scenario at RHV, the total fee would be approximately $6.2 million (assuming an average of 1,100 square feet for each multi-family unit and an average of 1,500 square feet for each single-family unit). Another way for this impact to be mitigated would be for the project to include a school as a part of the overall project plan. A typical elementary school site would be roughly 10 acres RED-H]SLLV1EW AIRPORT CLOSURE 86 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR in size. In any case, whether a future project includes a school within the project, or whether an impact fee is paid to the school district and the district builds the school, a new school at some location would be required. P.HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS The following discussion addresses the issue of whether there are any potentially significant health hazards associated with the proposed project in view of the existing high voltage (115 kilovolt) electric transmission lines, which are along the easterly edge of the site. In order to understand this complex issue and how it applies to this project, the following background material is provided: Background & Overview of Issues Pertaining to Electromagnetic Fields43 In recent years there has been much controversy regarding the potential health effects resulting from long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). While EMFs occur naturally and are present in everything from visible light to radio waves to X-rays, attention has focused on whether exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs is hazardous. Specifically, does long-term exposure to ELF EMFs associated with alternating current electricity cause health problems in humans? These ELF EMFs are present in appliances, televisions, video display terminals (VDTs), electric blankets, and household wiring, as well as electric transmission and distribution lines. The strength of an EMF is highly dependent upon the amount of current flow; the more power being consumed, the stronger the EMF. While the electric field component of the EMF is relatively easy to shield, the magnetic field component passes through most materials, including concrete and lead. Most health-related research is centered on the potential hazards associated with the magnetic field component of EMFs. The unit of measurement of the magnetic field is the milliGauss (mG). The strength of a magnetic field diminishes substantially as one moves away from the source of the EMF. As an example, at a distance of 1.2 inches, the strength of the magnetic field from a hair dryer can range from 60 to 20,000 mG, while at 12 inches the strength of the field drops to 1 to 70 mG. There have been hundreds of studies on the subject of the health effects associated with long-term exposure to ELF EMFs. Recent studies have shown a potential link between chronic exposure to ELF EMFs and cancer. Some studies indicate that there may be health risks associated with long- term exposure to EMFs with strengths as low as 1 to 5 raG. According to the APA report, "current thinking holds that EMFs are cancer promoters rather than cancer initiators: they may not cause cancer or alter DNA directly, but rather accelerate the growth of tumors." However, it is critical to note that the EMF-cancer link has not been proven and that further studies are underway. In 1992, EPA’s Science Advisory Board concluded that "currently available information is insufficient to conclude that...electric and magnetic fields are carcinogenic." 43This discussion is based, in part, upon information contained in an American Planning Association (APA) report which summarizes the results of health studies on this issue, existing regulations, and current thinking about avoidance of excessive exposure to EMFs. The report is titled "Electromagnetic Fields and Land Use Controls", Planning AdvisoR’ Service Report Number 435, APA, December 1991. It is also based upon a 6113/95 report of the National Council on Radiation Protection regarding EMF exposure guidelines. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 87 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Land-use related issues pertaining to EMFs center around the siting of new development adjacent to existing electric transmission lines, distribution lines, and substations. Similar issues arise when utilities propose new power lines or substations near existing development. With regard to power lines it is important to note that the strength of EMFs is greatly dependent upon the design of the line (i.e., configuration and spacing of the wires, tower design, electrical phasing and circuitry, above ground, below ground, etc.), voltage, and current flow. For this reason, it is recommended that EMFs from given power lines be measured, rather than relying on general assumptions, when making land use decisions. While further research on this issue is continuing, various agencies have adopted the policy of "prudent avoidance" to chronic exposure to ELF EMFs as the best way to currently address this problem. The California State Board of Education requires that new schools be sited 100 feet from the right-of-way (ROW) of 100-110 kilovolt (kV) power lines, 150 feet from the ROW of 220-230 kV lines, and 250 feet from the ROW of 345 kV lines. A 1992 survey of 48 local governments in California found 10 with adopted recommendations regarding EMFs, with many more considering such recommendations. For example, the City of Irvine has an ordinance which forbids the siting of schools or residences where they will receive exposure to EMFs from power lines of 4 or more mG; this has resulted in setbacks ranging from approximately 60 to 100 yards. At present, San Jose does not have any formal guidelines regarding EMFs, although the City has disclosed this potential hazard in EIRs on various development projects in recent years. The APA report recommends that plans for new utility lines have EMF mitigation components and that existing lines be retrofitted with designs which reduce EMFs. In 1995, the National Council on Radiation Protection published draft recommendations for exposure to EMFs. These guidelines include: 1) no new day care centers, schools, or playgrounds where the EMF level exceeds 2 mG, 2) no new residences where the EMF level exceeds 2 mG for periods longer than two hours per day, and 3) in office and industrial settings, designs should have the goal of a 2 mG ambient exposure for workers. 1.Existing EMF Levels on the Reid-Hillview Property The magnetic field from the transmission lines which are along the east side of RHV were measured in 1994 by PG&E at a point several miles to the south, in conjunction with a recently-approved residential development in south San Jose. These measurements will be assumed to be representative of those found at RHV. Three locations along the transmission lines were selected and the magnetic field levels at various distances were measured. The highest reading recorded at the three locations was approximately 46.0 mG directly under one of the four transmission lines. At that same location, the reading dropped to about 2 mG at a distance of approximately 175 feet from the outermost line. It is important to note that the strength of the magnetic field will vary within a given day and from day to day, depending upon the current (amperage load) flowing through the line at any given time. According to PG&E, the transmission lines were operating under normal load conditions at the time the above-described measurements were taken on the site. Thus, these REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 88 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR measurements are viewed as representative of existing conditions, recognizing that there will be times when magnetic field levels are higher or lower.*~ In view of these readings, it is assumed that the 2 mG contour line would be __.175 feet west of the westernmost electric transmission line. Therefore, the areas on the RHV property which are exposed to elevated EMF levels are quite small. The areas most affected are at the northerly and southerly ends of the property where the transmission lines are located west of Capitol Expressway. In the central portion of the property, the transmission lines are located within the median of Capitol Expressway and, therefore, the zone where the EMF level is above 2 mG does not extend very far onto the airport property. It appears that none of the existing buildings at RHV which contain offices are within the elevated EMF zone. Portions of some of the aircraft hangars or shelters at the south end of the airport may, however, be within the 2 mG contour line. 2.Threshold of Significance for Hazards Associated with EMFs For this project, the threshold of significance is defined as follows: the project would construct residences, schools, day care centers, or workplaces where the average ambient EMF level exceeds 2 mG. 3.Impacts Associated with EMF Hazards In the short-term, the closure of RHV would have no effect on the exposure of people to elevated levels of EMFs. This conclusion is based upon the fact that there are presently no places on the airport where people gather for extended periods of time (e.g., offices) which are within the area of the property exposed to elevated EMF levels. The redevelopment of the airport property with a park would have a less-than-significant EMF-related impact. Although people using the park could be within the area which is exposed to elevated EMF levels, the typical duration of such an exposure would be relatively short. The potential risk associated with short-term exposure is less than that associated with long-term exposure, and there is no evidence to suggest that this type of exposure would be significant in terms of a health risk. The redevelopment of the RHV property with either residential or industrial/commercial uses could result in a significant EMF-related impact. Since the potential scenarios being considered in this EIR would maximize the use of the site, it is likely that residences or workplaces would be located within the portion of the property which is exposed to elevated EMF levels. Mitigation for this impact would consist of designing the project so that inhabited structures are located outside of the zone exposed to elevated EMF levels. ~Source: Levin Property Draft EIR, City of San Jose, July 1994. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 89 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 4.Mitigation for EMF-Related Impacts The following measures would mitigate the potentially significant EMF-related impacts under the industrial/commercial and residential redevelopment scenarios to a less-than-significant level: Prior to any detailed project planning, have PG&E (or other qualified personnel) take ambient EMF readings along the electric transmission lines adjacent to RHV. These readings should establish the contour on the site where the EMF level is 2 mG under typical operating conditions for the transmission lines. Based upon the results of the readings, plan the project so that all residential and workplace buildings are located outside of the area exposed to EMF levels above 2 mG. Automobile parking would be a suitable use within those areas exposed to elevated EMF levels. If a future residential project includes a school and playground, locate those facilities outside of the 2 mG contour line, or 100 feet from the edge of the PG&E right-of- way, whichever is geater. Q.VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS 1.Existing Setting The RHV area typifies an urban environment, as there is a mix of residential and commercial uses, along with various public facilities such as schools, parks, and libraries. There are no prominent man-made structures such as tall buildings in the area. RHV itself is typical of most general aviation airports. Most of the buildings on the airport property are single-story structures which house businesses and/or aircraft. The tallest structure is the FAA control tower on the west side of the airfield. The most notable views from RHV and the surrounding area are the mountains to the east, including Mount Hamilton (elevation 4,380’). 2.Thresholds of Significance for Visual and Aesthetic Impacts For this project, the thresholds of significance for a visual and aesthetic impact are defined as follows: 1) the project would substantially block existing views to scenic vistas or resources [e.g., the mountains, the ocean, a riparian corridor, skyline of a City, etc.], or 2) the physical mass of one or more components of the project will substantially intrude into adjacent land uses, or 3) the project will remove or substantially alter an important scenic or aesthetic resource, or 4) the project will produce substantial light or glare such that it poses a hazard [e.g., a hazard to aviation] or a nuisance. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 90 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR 3.Visual and Aesthetic Impacts In the short-term, the closure of RHV would have no visual or aesthetic impact. This conclusion assumes closure of the airport and no redevelopment on the property. The redevelopment of the RHV property as a park would result in a beneficial visual and aesthetic impact, as compared to existing conditions. This scenario would remove the existing buildings, runways, and taxiways. These facilities would be replaced with the typical amenities found in most parks, including l~ees, bushes, grassy areas, etc. In general, a park would be more aesthetically pleasing than an airport, and a park environment would be compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. The only "negative" visual feature of the park’ would be any soundwalls which may be needed along Capitol Expressway and Tully Road. However, the visual and aesthetic impact of the soundwalls could be minimized with careful design of the walls, such as by using landscaped berms to reduce total wall height. The redevelopment of the RHV property with either residential or industrial/commercial uses would have a less-than-significant visual and aesthetic impact. Either of these scenarios would be a more intense use of the property than is the airport. The buildings under the industrial!commercial scenario would be one or two stories in height. The residential buildings would range from one or two stories, to up to four stories over parking, depending upon the density (see page 8). Assuming that the taller buildings would be located on areas of the site not adjacent to the existing single-family neighborhoods, those buildings would not create a significant visual impact upon those existing neighborhoods. Locating taller structures away from existing residences would also preserve views. As would be the case with the park scenario, the residential redevelopment scenario would likely have soundwalls along Capitol Expressway and Tully Road. As noted above, the visual and aesthetic impact of the soundwalls could be minimized with careful design of the walls, such as by using landscaped berms to reduce total wall height. All three potential redevelopment scenarios would be required to comply with San Jose’s architectural design guidelines. These guidelines are in place to ensure that proposed projects are compatible with the surrounding land uses. Since no significant visual and aesthetic impacts would occur, based upon the thresholds of significance listed on page 90, no mitigation measures are warranted or required. R.CUMULATI~ IMPACTS Cumulative impacts occur when the effects of two or more projects are combined. The importance of assessing cumulative impacts is that. whereas individual projects may have less-than-significant impacts, taken together, the impacts of two or more projects may be significant. Cumulative impacts typically occur when there is a succession of projects proposed over time in the same general area, affecting the same environment. CEQA requires an EIR to disclose cumulative impacts so that the public and decision-makers are aware of the full effect of a number of projects occurring in the same area. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 91 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR For the Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Project, there is one other project which could combine with the RHV project to produce significant cumulative impacts. That project is the proposed adoption of an updated Master Plan at San Jose International Airport (SJC). The SJC alternatives are described in detail in this EIR beginning on page 27. The SJC alternatives are factored into the various analyses throughout this EIR in order to account for cumulative conditions. These analyses identified one cumulatively significant impact: effect on air transportation. Please refer to Section III., B., Air Transportation, beginning on page 21. S.GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Growth-inducing impacts typically result when a project is approved which, in turn, causes additional development. An example of a project with a potentially significant growth-inducing impact would be the approval of an industrial park in an outlying, undeveloped area not designated or zoned for development. In that case, the industrial park would likely lead to pressures for additional~ development, including housing, shopping areas, schools, infrastructure improvements, etc. Another example would be the approval of a sewer line in an area which had been constrained from development due to inadequate capacity in the sewer system. In that case, the construction of the new sewer line would lead to further growth in the previously-constrained area. In the short-term, the closure of RHV would not have any growth-inducing impacts because no new development is proposed. Further, none of the redevelopment scenarios being considered for the RHV property would have substantial growth-inducing impacts because the site is located in a developed area. Although such infill redevelopment would have significant impacts, as described in this EIR, the redevelopment would not lead to substantial additional growth. The only additional growth would potentially be some minor infill development to serve the land uses on the RHV site. However, even that secondary growth would not be substantial because the area is already served by numerous services. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 92 MARCH t 996 DRAFT EIR IV.ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A.INTRODUCTION Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines states that - in addition to the No Project Alternative - an EIR shall include a discussion of alternatives to the proposed project that "could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects". For this project, the stated objective is to remove an incompatible land use by closing RHV. However, there are a number of alternatives which could, at least partially, achieve this objective. In order to determine a reasonable range of alternatives, it is necessary to define what is meant by the phrase "incompatible land use". Although there may be different interpretations of what "incompatible" means, various Federal, State, and local plans and regulations have defined incompatibility with regard to land uses in the vicinity of airports. Relevant documents pertaining to land uge compatibility at and adjacent to airports include the FAA Airport Design Circulars, Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150, the California Land Use Planning Handbook, the Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports, the Santa Clara County General Plan, and the City of San Jose General Plan. All of these land use plans and regulations are defined in terms of noise and safety. Table 24, summarizes the relevant regulations. Under these regulations, it is clear that these regulating agencies would regard many of the existing land uses around RHV as being incompatible land uses with an airport. In other words, if all of the regulations which are in place today were in effect when many of the land uses surrounding the airport were approved, it is unlikely that those land uses would have been approved. Nonetheless, for the purpose of defining alternatives, it is possible to achieve various degrees of land use compatibility by removing surrounding incompatible land uses, instead of closing RHV. All of these alternatives would involve the removal/relocation of existing facilities to one degree or another. Although there are many possible alternatives, the following discussion evaluates five potential alternatives which comprise a reasonable range of alternatives, and which could achieve varying degrees of land use compatibility around Reid-Hillview. The alternatives to be evaluated are as follows: No Project Alternative A Keep RHV Open and Retain Existing Surrounding Land Uses Remove All Incompatible Land Uses Within All Safety Zones and Within the 65 dB CNEL Contour Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Remove All Incompatible Land Uses Within FAA Safety Zones and ALUC Inner Safety Zone Remove All Incompatible Land Uses Within FAA Safety Zones Only Move the Airfield 500’ to the North and Acquire Hillview Park REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSU~93 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR © Z Z Z E~ E~ < The No Project Alternative would retain the status quo, and would not achieve any greater land use compatibility than that which presently exists. Alternative A would achieve full land use compatibility around Reid-Hillview and would require major residential, business, and institutional relocations. Alternative B is a mid-range alternative which would achieve partial land use compatibility, but would still require substantial relocations. Alternative C would achieve the least degree of compatibility, but it would also minimize the need for relocations. Finally, although it would not improve overall land use compatibility, Alternative D is included because it was evaluated in the Phase I study and because it was requested by several speakers at the EIR Scoping Meeting. B.NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative (NPA) would keep RHV open. Under the NPA, the impacts which are associated with the operation of the airport would continue to occur. The primary impact of retaining the airport is that the existing incompatibility between RHV and the surrounding land uses would remain and, thus, the objective of the project would not be achieved. The noise generated by aircraft, as described previously in this EIR, would continue to affect the surrounding area. Safety hazards would also remain in place, although the SRI risk assessment found the statistical risk associated with aircraft accidents to be relatively low. The degree of impacts associated with keeping the airport open are directly related to the number of annual operations. As shown in Table 4 on page 22, operational levels have varied over the years at RHV. Projections for year 2000 show lower operational levels than existing levels if SJC does not downsize its general aviation facilities, and higher operational levels than existing levels if SJC adopts any of its Master Plan alternatives. However, under all SJC scenarios, operational levels would still be far less than historical levels, as shown in Table 4. The primary benefits of the NPA, as compared to the closure of RHV and future redevelopment of the site, would be as follows: 1) the significant adverse cumulative impacts on air transportation would be avoided, 2) the significant displacement of 29 businesses at RHV would be avoided, 3) the significant loss of optimal Burrowing Owl habitat would be avoided, 4) the significant air quality impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, 5) the significant traffic impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, and 6) the significant impact on schools (residential scenario only) would be avoided. Cm ALTERNATIVE A -REMOVE ALL INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES WITHIN ALL SAFETY ZONES AND WITHIN THE 65 DB CNEL CONTOUR Alternative A would leave RHV open and would remove all incompatible land uses within the FAA and ALUC safety zones and within the 65 dB CNEL contour, as shown on Figure 14 on the following page. This alternative would fully achieve the objective of the proposed project. However, implementation of Alternative A would involve major residential, business, and institutional displacement. Residential displacement would consist of approximately 501 single-family residences north of the airport. Business displacement would include the World Savings Bank building, Eastridge Shopping Center, and portions of the Lion Business Park. Institutional displacement would include Hillview Park (including the library and community center), a portion of (possibly all of) REID-H]J~LVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 96 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR existing uses Base Map: City of San Jose ALTERNATIVE A -REMOVE INCOMPATIBLE USES IN ALL SAFETY ZONES & WITHIN 65 dB CNEL CONTOUR FIGURE 14 97 CAPITOL ALTERNATIVE B -REMOVE INCOMPATIBLE USES IN FAA SAFETY ZONES & ALUC INNER SAFETY ZONE r~ Remove existing uses 1" = 800’ ((~ Base Map: City of San Jose FIGURE 15 98 CAPITOL 3 ALTERNATIVE C -REMOVE INCOMPATIBLE USES IN FAA SAFETY ZONES ONLY REALIGN TULLY ROAD r~P, en-,<~ World Savings Bank & Eastrid~e In. ~ Street Clos~r~i1 = 800’ Base Map: City of San Jose FIGURE 16 =,,-, CAPITOL lC )())---~) ~ SHIFT AIRFIELD 500’ ~ ~1: ~ ~:ioO~-..I ~ ~~ .............~ ~ o~,~ -~ t .................~ 14---, .............:,,~1 I, .......~ ~ ALTERNATIVE D -MOVE AIRFIELD 500 FEET NORTH & ACQUIRE HILLVIEW PARK -../ 1 = 800’ Base Map: City of San Jose FIGURE 17 100 Meyer School, and all of Cassell School. This would be a significant environmental impact, and would also be very costly to implement. Alternative A would also require the realignment of Tully Road approximately 400 feet to the south in the vicinity of the airport. The realignment would remove Tully Road from the Runway Safety Area and the Object Free Area. In the long-term, assuming all of the incompatible land uses around RHV were removed, Alternative A would have a minimal environmental impact. This statement is based upon the fact that the land uses which are allowed within the designated safety zones are either very low intensity (e.g., a~iculture, automobile parking, etc.) or "no intensity" (e.g., undeveloped open space), as shown in Table 24. The primary benefits of Alternative A, as compared to the closure of RHV and future redevelopment of the site, would be as follows: 1) the significant adverse cumulative impacts on air transportation would be avoided, 2) the significant displacement of 29 businesses at RHV would be avoided, 3) the significant loss of optimal Burrowing Owl habitat would be avoided, 4) the significant air quality impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, 5) the significant traffic impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, 6) the significant hydrologic impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, and 7) the significant impact on schools (residential scenario only) would be avoided. ALTERNATIVE B -REMOVE ALL INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES WITHIN FAA SAFETY ZONES AND ALUC ~NER SAFETY ZONE Alternative B would leave RHV open and would remove all incompatible land uses within the FAA safety zones and the ALUC’s inner safety zone, as shown on Figure 15 on page 98. This alternative would partially achieve the objective of the proposed project. Alternative B would not fully achieve the objective of the proposed project because the existing incompatible land uses within the ALUC’s outer safety zone would remain. As with Alternative A, implementation of Alternative B would involve substantia! residential, business, and institutional displacement. Residential displacement would consist of approximately 81 single-family residences north of the airport. Business displacement would include the World Savings Bank building and the northerly portion of the Eastridge Shopping Center. Institutional displacement would include Hillview Park (including the library and community center) and a portion of (possibly all of) Meyer School. This would be a significant environmental impact, and would also be very costly to implement. Alternative B would also require the realignment of Tully Road approximately 400 feet to the south in the vicinity of the airport. The realignment would remove Tully Road from the Runway Safety Area and the Object Free Area. The Eastridge Lane entrance to the Eastridge Shopping Center would also be eliminated by Alternative B. In the long-term, assuming the incompatible land uses in these safety zones were removed, Alternative B would have a minimal environmental impact. This statement is based upon the fact that the land uses which are allowed within the designated safety zones are either very low intensity (e.g., REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 101 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR ag-riculture, automobile parking, etc.) or "no intensity" (e.g., undeveloped open space), as shown in Table 24. The primary benefits of Alternative B, as compared to the closure of RHV and future redevelopment of the site, would be as follows: 1) the significant adverse cumulative impacts on air transportation would be avoided, 2) the significant displacement of 29 businesses at RHV would be avoided, 3) the significant loss of optimal Burrowing Owl habitat would be avoided, 4) the significant air quality impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, 5) the significant traffic impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, 6) the significant hydrologic impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, and 7) the significant impact on schools (residential scenario only) would be avoided. ALTERNATIVE C -REMOVE ALL INCOMPAT~LE LAND USES WITHIN FAA SAFETY ZONES ONLY Alternative C would leave RHV open and would remove all incompatible land uses within the FAA safety zones only, as shown on Figure 16 on page 99. This alternative would partially achieve the objective of the proposed project. Alternative C would fall substantially short achieving the full objective of the proposed project because the incompatible land uses within the ALUC’s inner and outer safety zones would remain. Compared to Alternatives A and B, implementation of Alternative C would not require any residential or institutional displacement. Only the World Savings Bank building would be displaced under Alternative C. Alternative C would also require the realignment of Tully Road approximately 400 feet to the south in the vicinity of the airport. The realignment would remove Tully Road from the Runway Safety Area and the Object Free Area. The Eastridge Lane entrance to the Eastridge Shopping Center would also be eliminated by Alternative C. In the long-term, assuming the incompatible land uses in the FAA safety zones were removed, Alternative C would have a minimal environmental impact. This statement is based upon the fact that the land uses which are allowed within the FAA safety zones are either very low intensity (e.g., agriculture, automobile parking, etc.) or "no intensity" (e.g., undeveloped open space), as shown in Table 24. The primary benefits of Alternative C, as compared to the closure of RHV and future redevelopment of the site, would be as follows: 1) the significant adverse cumulative impacts on air transportation would be avoided, 2) the significant displacement of 29 businesses at RHV would be avoided, 3) the significant loss of optimal Burrowing Owl habitat would be avoided, 4) the significant air quality impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, 5) the significant traffic impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, 6) the significant hydrologic impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, and 7) the significant impact on schools (residential scenario only) would be avoided. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 102 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR ALTERNATIVE D o MOVE THE AIRFIELD 500’ TO THE NORTH AND ACQUIRE HILLVIEW PARK Alternative D, shown on Figure 17 on page 100, would leave RHV open, but would shift the runways approximately 500 feet to the north. Alternative D would also acquire Hillview Park, and would realign/close Ocala Avenue across the north side of the airport. The primary advantage of this alternative is that it would remove Tully Road, Eastridge Lane and the World Savings Bank building from within the FAA safety zones without having to relocate or displace those uses. Other advantages of Alternative D are that none of the buildings at the Eastridge Shopping Center would be within the ALUC’s inner safety zone, and most of the Lion Business Park would no longer be within the ALUC’s outer safety zone. The reason Alternative D includes the acquisition of Hillview Park and the realignment/closure of Ocala Avenue across the north side of the airport is as follows: shifting the airfield 500 feet to the north would cause most of Hillview Park (including the library and community center) and Ocala Avenue to fall within the FAA safety zones. Thus, this alternative would require the relocation of both the community center and the library to new sites. In addition to the required relocation of the library and community center, the primary environmental disadvantages of Alternative D are that 1) many more homes would fall within the ALUC safety zones, and 2) many more homes would be exposed to noise from aircraft. Specifically, shifting the safety zones 500 feet to the north would add roughly 100 single-family residences to the +_.501 single- family residences already located within the ALUC safety zones. [Note: In addition, some homes presently located in the outer safety zone would fall within the inner safety zone under this alternative, as shown on Figure 13.] The noise exposure area (see Figures 11 and 12) would also be shifted 500 feet to the north, causing noise impacts to increase at many residences. The primary benefits of Alternative D, as compared to the closure of RHV and future redevelopment of the site, would be as follows: 1) the significant adverse cumulative impacts on air transportation would be avoided, 2) the significant displacement of 29 businesses at RHV would be avoided, 3) the significant loss of optimal Burrowing Owl habitat would be avoided, 4) the significant air quality impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, 5) the significant traffic impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, 6) the significant hydrologic impacts of the redevelopment scenarios (except the park) would be avoided, and 7) the significant impact on schools (residential scenario only) would be avoided. In summary, Alternative D can be characterized as somewhat of a tradeoff: it generally improves conditions south of the airport with regard to land use compatibility, but worsens conditions north of the airport with regard to land use compatibility. G.IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNAT~E Of all the alternatives, including the proposed project and the No Project Alternative, Alternative C would be the environmentally superior alternative for the following reasons: !) it avoids all of the significant impacts of the proposed project and the future redevelopment of the site, 2) it avoids the major displacement of residences, businesses, and public facilities of Alternatives A and B, 3) it REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 103 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR avoids the increased land use compatibility impacts north of the airport of Alternative D, 4) it has minimal short-term and long-term environmental impact, and 5) by removing facilities from the FAA safety zones at the south end of the airport, it would reduce the likely severity of an accident occurring in the safety zones when compared to existing conditions. This last reason is supported by historical accident data at RHV which show a number of accidents occurring just short of the runways (i.e., in the Eastridge parking lot and at Tully Road). REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 104 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR V.SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Section III of this EIR identified the direct environmental impacts associated with the closure of Reid- Hillview Airport, as well as the environmental impacts associated with three potential redevelopment scenarios on the airport property. Listed below are those impacts which were found to be significant, based upon the thresholds of significance identified for each issue. Except where indicated, all significant impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. DIRECT IMPACTS OF RHV CLOSURE Air Transportation (Project Only and Cumulative Conditions) Business Displacement (UNAVOIDABLE) IMPACTS DUE TO REDEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT PROPERTY PARK REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO .Noise .Vegetation and Wildlife .Hazardous Materials RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO .Roadway Network Intersections .Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods (UNAVOIDABLE) .Noise .Vegetation and Wildlife .Air Quality (UNAVOIDABLE) .Hazardous Materials .Hydrology/Flooding .San Jose’s Jobs/Housing Balance (UNAVOIDABLE) .Sanitary Sewers .Schools .Parks .Electromagnetic Fields Hazards INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO .Roadway Network Intersections .Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods (UNAVOIDABLE) .Vegetation and Wildlife .Air Quality (UNAVOIDABLE) .Hazardous Materials .Hydrology/Flooding .Sanitary Sewers .Electromagnetic Fields Hazards REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 105 MARCH !996 DRAFT EIR VI.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR was prepared by Santa Clara County on October 6, 1995. The NOP was mailed to 40 governmental agencies, including the State Clearinghouse. A Public Agency Scoping Meeting was held at 2 P.M. on October 23, 1995. Notice of the meeting was mailed to the same 40 agencies which received the NOP. The following agencies sent a representative to the Public Agency Scoping Meeting: San Mateo County, Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics, City of San Jose - San Jose Int’l Airport, City of Sunnyvale, City of Mountain View, and the FAA. A Public Scoping Meeting was held at 7 P.M. on November 2, 1995 at Meyer Elementary School adjacent to RHV. Notice of the meeting was mailed to 4,265 residents and property owners within 1A-mile of RHV, and was hand-delivered to 600 residences in the project area. Large meeting notices were published in English in the San Jose Mercury-News (10123195), in Spanish in La Oferta (10/25/95), and in Vietnamese in Thoi Bau (10126/95). Ninety-three persons signed the attendance roster at the Public Scoping Meeting, and 30 persons submitted speaker/comment cards.45 A total of 29 written comments were received by the County in response to the NOP, the Public Agency Scoping Meeting. and the Public Scoping Meeting. Copies of these comments are reproduced in Appendix A of this EIR. In the 29 written comments, as well as at the two scoping meetings, numerous issues relating to the future of Reid-Hillview were raised. Among the most-repeated concerns were the following topics: 1) neighborhood issues (noise and safety), 2) impacts of possible RHV closure on other airports and communities, 3) combined effects of the proposed downsizing of general aviation facilities at SJC and the closure of RHV, 4) alternatives to closing RHV. 5) value of RHV to the community, 6) potential civilian aviation use of Moffett Federal Airfield, and 7) project scheduling/timing with regard to grants accepted by the County from the FAA. All of the comments received by the County were forwarded to the preparers of this EIR so that the relevant issues could be addressed. There were several issues raised in these comments which were not directly addressed in this EIR. Those issues are listed below. Moffett Federal Airfield The Cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View expressed strong concern that aircraft not be relocated to Moffett Federal Airfield if RHV is closed. This EIR did not include Moffett Federal Airfield in the group of airports to which aircraft from RHV and/or SJC would be relocated. Moffett is mentioned on page 39 as a mitigation measure, but the mitigation is presently infeasible because the airfield is not open for civilian aviation use. Although the City of San Jose has expressed interest in keeping Moffett Federal Airfield available as an option for possible future civilian aviation use, it is the County’s position that such potential use would be speculative and, thus, is beyond the reasonable scope of analysis for this EIR. This position is underscored by the letter received from NASA in response to the NOP which states that NASA (the operator of Moffett Federal Airfield) is opposed to the use of Moffett Federal Airfield by general aviation. 4~Records of the Public Agency Scoping Meeting and the Public Scoping Meeting were prepared by County staff. These records are available for review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, at Reid-Hillview Airport, 2500 Cunningham Avenue, San Jose (contact person: Larry Feldman at (408) 929-1060). REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 106 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR Environmental Impacts at Other Airports Several comments requested that this EIR analyze the environmental impacts associated with relocating aircraft from RHV and/or SJC to other airports. While this EIR does quantify the number of aircraft to be relocated to other airports, as well as the resultant increases in operations at those airports, the EIR does not analyze environmental impacts at those airports. The reason this was not done is that the RHV Closure Project would not construct any new facilities at any airport to which aircraft would be relocated. Aircraft which would relocate from RHV and/or SJC to another airport would do so only to the extent that there is space available within the existing facilities. Since all of the existing facilities at these airports have undergone their own environmental review under CEQA, the use of those existing facilities by aircraft from RHV (or any other location) would not require additional environmental review. It is acknowledged in this EIR (Section III., B.) that the combination of closing RHV and downsizing of general aviation at SJC would exceed the capacity of the area’s general aviation system. The possible mitigation measures are the expansion of an existing airport or the construction of a replacement airport. The former measure is discussed in this EIR on page 38; that analysis recognizes that expansion at Palo Alto and/or South County Airports would result in additional significant impacts. The latter measure is discussed in this EIR beginning on page 34; that analysis recognizes that a new airport at any of four potential sites would result in additional significant impacts. Educational Value of RHV Several people in the community stated that RHV is a valuable educational resource for schoolchildren. They expressed their concern over the possible closure of RHV with regard to this issue. This point is noted and acknowledged by the County. It was not analyzed in this EIR because it is a social impact, as opposed to a direct environmental impact. Legal and Scheduling Issues A number of persons attending the Public Scoping Meeting raised the question of the feasibility of the proposed closure of RHV in view of the County’s acceptance of grant monies from the FAA, and the FAA’s opposition to closure prior to year 2008. This is a legal issue, as opposed to an environmental issue. Please see the text on page 11 under the heading of "Project Scheduling" for more discussion of this issue. REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 107 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR VII. EIR AUTHOR AND CONSULTANTS AUTHOR Santa Clara County Thomas D. Rountree, Environmental Program Manager Julie Render, Environmental Analyst~IR Project Manager PROJECT COORDINATORS Christine Fischer, Director of Roads & Airports Larry Feldman, Acting Deputy Director of Aviation CONS ULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. [ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT] San Jose, California John M. Hesler, Vice-President & EIR Author Lisa Obregon, Researcher John Schwarz, Researcher Jodi L. Starbird. Graphic Artist Aries Consultants, Ltd. [PHASE I AVIATION DATA] Morgan Hill, California John Sanders. Principal Freddi Comperchio, Associate SRI International [PHASE I RISK ASSESSMENT] Menlo Park, California Gerald W. Bernstein, Director Pamela McAlpine, Senior Consultant Robert Wohlsen, Senior Consultant Dr. Brent W. Silver, Aircraft Safety Consultant Dr. P. Roger Williamson, Aircraft Safety Consultant REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 108 MARCH !996 DRAFT EIR EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS (continued) RGM Associates [PtL~_SE I TRANSPORTATION DATA] CampbelI, California Renato Martinez, Traffic Engineer Dan Takacs, Traffic Engineer Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc. [NOISE ANALYSIS] Visalia & Sacramento, California Bob Brown, President Martin Associates [ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT] Lancaster, Pennsylvania John Martin, Principal Mark Papineau, Project Manager Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. [T1LA, FFIC ANALYSIS] San Jose, California Jane Bierstedt, Principal Steve Hough, Project Manager M O’C Physics Applied [AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS] Palo Alto, California Mike O’Connor, Ph.D., Principal H. T. Harvey Associates [BURROWING OWL SURVEY] Alviso, California Penelope Delevoryas, Burrowing Owl Specialist Hulberg & Associates, Inc. [LAND APPRAISAL] San Jose, California Norman Hulberg, MAI, Appraiser Terry Larsen, Appraiser Craig Engen, Appraiser REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 109 MARCH 1996 DRAFF EIIK VIII. REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED REFERENCES American Planning Association, Electromagnetic Fields and Land Use Controls, December 1991. Aries Consultants, Santa Clara County General Aviation Reliever Airport Site Selection Study, Phase I: Review Conclusions of Previous Studies Analyzing PotentiM Sites in Santa Clara County and Conduct Further Research to Identify Any Additional Potential Sites, July 1990. Aries Consultants, Santa Clara County General Aviation Reliever Airport Site Selection Study, Phase II: Conduct Technical!Feasibility Analysis of Alternative Sites Selected as a Result of Phase I, July !990. Aries Consultants, Final Technical Report on Aviation & Transportation Data for the Reid- Hillview Airport Closure Evaluation Project, November 1993. Aries Consultants, Data Collection & Forecasting Methodology Working Paper for the Reid- Hillview Airport Closure Evaluation Project, March 1993. Aries Consultants, Alternatives Working Paper for the Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Evaluation project, March 1993. Barton-Aschman Associates, Mitigation Measures for Reid-Hillview Airport Redevelopment Alternatives, December 1995. Canonic Environmental, Work Plan: Two-Phase High Vacuum Extraction at Reid-Hillview Airport, July 1994. H.T. Harvey & Associates, Burrowing Owl Survey at Reid-Hillview Airport, November 1995. Hulberg & Associates, Alternative Land Uses Appraisal at Reid-Hillview Airport, November 1995. Martin Associates, The Economic Impact of Reid-Hillview Airport, January 1996. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Regional Airport System Plan Update, November 1994. MO’C Physics Applied, Reid-Hillview Airport Project Air Quality Impacts, November 1995. Palo Alto, City of, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995. San Jose, City of, Evergreen Development Policy, July 2, 1991. San Jose, City of, Phase II Airport Noise Compatibility Program Report for San Jose International Airport, September 1986. REID-H~LVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 110 MARCH 1996 DRAF~ EIR San Jose, City of, Notice of Preparation & Initial Study for San Jose International Airport Master Plan Update EIR, July 1995. San Jose, City of, San Jose 2020 General Plan, 1995. San Jose, City of, Final EIR: Evergreen Specific Plan Transportation Improvements, May 1994. San Jose, City of, Draft EIR: Levin Property, July 1994. San Jose, City of, Initia! Study: Southwest Airlines Service at San Jose International Airport, April 1993. San Jose, City of, Initial Study: Employee Parking Lot & Perimeter Road at San Jose International Airport, May 1995. Santa Clara, County of, General Plan, 1994. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, Final EIR: Reid-Hillview Airport 170 Tie-Downs, June 1984. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, Final EIR: Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan Update, April 1982. Santa Clara County Airports Land Use Commission, Reid-Hillview Airport Land Use Safety Compatibility Study, October 1990. Santa Clara County Airports Land Use Commission, Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports, September 1992. SRI International, Risk Assessment of the Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Evaluation Project, Final Report, November 1993. PERSONS CONSULTED Gary Bentson Julie Caporgno Ron Conn Mike Dowdle Walter Fujczak Cary Greene Ray Hybarger Calvin Matsui Pat Mickelson Joseph Rodriguez Hanna Slocum Juanell Waldo San Jose Water Company San Jose Planning Department San Jose Public Works Department San Jose Police Department San Jose Fire Department San Jose International Airport Santa Clara County Transportation Agency San Jose Public Works Department Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Federal Aviation Administration San Jose Public Library Airports Land Use Commission REID-HILLVIEW AIRPORT CLOSURE 111 MARCH 1996 DRAFT EIR ATTACHMENT A ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP OF REID-HILLVIEW TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CLOSURE & REDEVELOPMENT [Introductory Note: Under the California Environmental Quali& Act (CEQA), economic impacts are not considered to be environmental impacts unless they directly lead to physical changes in the environment. An example would be of a development project that leads to the creation of urban blight elsewhere. No such actual environmental effects would occur as a result of this project. Accordingly, the economic discussion presented herein is not part of this EIR, but is bound with this document for the convenience of the public and decision-makers. The economic impacts of any possible future redevelopment of the RHV propert)., are beyond the scope of this document and are not included herein.] A.ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP OF RE[D-HILLVIEW TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY Although it is a County-owned and operated facility, the operation of RHV is not paid for out of the County’s General Fund. Instead, the three County airports (RHV, Palo Alto, and South County) are operated under a separate account known as an Enterprise Account. This means that these facilities are self-supporting; income from business leases, rental of aircraft storage spaces, etc. pays for the operation and maintenance of the facilities. No taxpayer dollars are utilized. For the purpose of quantifying the relationship of RHV to the local economy, the firm of Martin Associates was retained during the preparation of this EIR. Martin Associates specializes in economic impact analyses for airports. Their complete report is Appendix H of this EIR. Martin Associates interviewed all 29 businesses located at RHV during the preparation of their report. In addition, a survey was mailed to all 261 of the County’s tenants who rent shelters, hangars, and tie-downs for their aircraft at RHV. Of the 261 surveys mailed, 107 were filled out and returned. The surveys provided data regarding on- and off-airport expenditures, operations data, and visitor information. Through the surveys, aircraft owners who use their aircraft for business were identified. These aircraft owners were re-contacted for additional information regarding their land-based business activities. Because the data for those tenants who did not return surveys could be markedly different from those who did return surveys, the impacts estimated for the Visitor Industry (described below) reflect only the statistics reported in the 107 returned surveys. This is a conservative approach that will result in some understating of the economic impact. A-1 Table A-1 on the following page summarizes the economic impact of RHV on the local economy, as estimated by Martin Associates. There are two scenarios shown in Table A-1. The first is for 1995, based upon existing numbers of based aircraft and operational levels at RHV. The second scenario assumes RHV operates at capacity (i.e., 900 based aircraft). The terms used in Table A-1 are described in brief, below. Readers desiring detailed information should refer to Appendix H. Direct Airport Jobs These represent the jobs provided by the businesses located at RHV, plus the jobs located off the airport which are directly related to RHV.1 The off-airport jobs are those in hotel, restaurant, and retail businesses which profit from visitors arriving in the area on aircraft at RHV. [Note: Roughly 1/3 of the business-related flights at RHV involve out-of-town visitors and roughly ~/a of the non-business-related flights at RHV involve out-of-town visitors.] Induced Airport Jobs A portion of the income received by the employees in the "direct airport jobs" category is re-spent locally, thus creating induced employment. Induced jobs are primarily in service industries such as housing, finance, wholesale/retail food and other goods, transportation, public services, health care, and entertainment. Indirect Jobs These are jobs created in the local economy by the purchase of goods and services by the businesses located at RHV. Related Airport Jobs The Martin Associates report found that roughly 50 local businesses have their business aircraft based at RHV. These aircraft are used by the various businesses to sel! to and to service clients, providing timely service in competitive markets. The 50 businesses surveyed were found to use their aircraft in conjunction with roughly 35% of their total business activity. Thus the "Related Airport Jobs" are 35% of the total employees of these 50 businesses. These jobs are not directly dependant upon RHV but, as the term implies, are related to the airport. Airport Revenue This is the revenue generated by the businesses located at RHV, plus the revenue generated by the out-of-town visitors who arrive on aircraft at RHV. Related Revenue This is 35% of the income generated by the businesses which have their business aircraft based at RHV (see "related airport jobs", above). This revenue is not directly dependent upon the operation of RHV. Direct Income This is the wages/salaries paid to the employees of the businesses located at RHV and the wages/salaries paid to the off-airport!visitor generated employees. Induced Income This is the wages/salaries paid to the employees in the "induced airport jobs" category (see above discussion). State/Local Taxes This category represents an assortment of taxes paid to state, county, and local governments by RHV businesses, visitors, and employees. ~The report found that approximately 87% of the employees live in Santa Clara County and 66% of the employees live in San Jose. A-2 SUMMARY Category Direct Airport Jobs Induced Airport Jobs Indirect Jobs Related Airport Jobs Airport Revenue Related Revenue Direct Income Induced Income State/Local Taxes Note: Source: TABLE A-1 OF REID-HILLVIEW ECONOMIC Sector Site-Generated Visitor-Generated Site-Generated Visitor-Generated From Site-Generated Induced Jobs Related Users Site-Generated Visitor-Generated Related Users Site-Generated Visitor-Generated Site-Generated Visitor-Generated Total: Site-Generated Visitor-Generated Total: 1995 101 25 39 5 34 6 162 $ 9,200,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 7,400,000 $ 3,519,000 $ 374,000 $ 3,344,000 $ 356,000 $ 7,593,O00" $ 935,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,135,000 IMPACTS RI-IV @ Capacity 148 see note below 57 see note below 52 see note below see note below $ 14.900,000 see note below see note below $ 5,143,000 see note below $ 4.886,000 see note below see note below $ 1,369,000 see note below see note below The visitor-generated and related-user sectors were not estimated for the "RHV at Capacity" scenario due to the lack of sufficient data to ensure reliability of such estimates. Martin Associates, 1996. A-3 ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CLOSURE OF REID-HILLVIEW AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE This section presents very preliminary rough estimates of costs which would likely be associated with the closure of RHV and its potential redevelopment. This information is being provided solely as a general guide to the public and decision-makers with regard to these likely economic costs. It is important to note that these costs, many of which were estimated based upon professional judgment and experience (as opposed to detailed cost estimating), should not be used for the purpose of determining the economic viability of a future land use on the RHV pr,..~r~erty. In addition, these estimates do not consider factors such as the long-term costs to governments to provide services (e.g., police, fire, libraries, etc.), revenue from sales and property taxes, etc. Those figures would need to be calculated if and when a specific redevelopment scenario is put forth for the RHV property., assuming the airport is closed. Table A-2 presents these costs. The data in Table A-2 assume that the County would not be required to repay the FAA any grant monies it has received over the years for RHV. [Note: The total of grant monies received from the FAA is $2,333,096.]’- :Includes $1,172,096 for airport purchase, $261,000 for reconstruction of the runway and taxiway lighting system, and $900,000 for expansion of the aircraft parking facilities [Source: memo from County Counsel to Board of Supervisors, 3/31/86]. A-4 TABLE A-2 ESTIMATED ECONOMIC AND FACTORS REDEVELOPMENT Redevelop as Park Appraised Value of Land occupied by Reid-HillviewI Airport Closure Costs2 ASSOCIATED WITH RHV nia $ 22,000,000 Redevelop as Residential $ 49,500,000 $ 22,000,000 CLOSURE Redevelop as Indust./Comm $ 33,000,000 $ 22,000,000 Cleanup of Contamination Costs3 Bldg Demolition/Site Clearing Costs Offsite Roadway Improvements Costs4 Offsite Sewer Improvements Costs5 $ 90,000 $ 1,000,000 - 0 - -0 - APPRAISED VALUE MINUS COSTS: II <s 23,090,000) $ 90,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 21,910,000 $ 90,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,910,000 1Appraisal of RHV property dated 11/1/95 by Hulberg & Associates for David Powers & Associates. The appraisal (see Appendix I) assumed the following: 1) the industrial/commercial and residential land use densities described in Section I of this EIR, 2) no onsite contamination, 3) all required General Plan & zoning designations are in place, and 4) the surrounding infrastructure is sufficient to handle the development. Further, this appraisal did not take into account any potential reduction in the size of the development to account for onsite stormwater retention, parks/open space, or schools; therefore, actual revenue may be less than shown. No appraisal is shown for the park scenario as it is assumed the facility would be a public park and, therefore, the land would not be sold. ~-Estimate from County staff in 4/15/86 memorandum to Board of Supervisors. Estimate includes $18 million for lease buyouts, $3 million for court settlement contingency costs, and $1 million for administrative & general legal costs. This estimate does NOT include the payback of any FAA grant monies. This estimate would need to be updated to reflect current conditions if it is decided to close the airport. 3Assumes $10,000 to remove each of the nine underground tanks at RHV, with typical low-level, adjacent soil contamination found at time of tank removal. Estimate does not assume groundwater contamination, the cleanup of which would be substantially more costly. 4Assumes an average of $500,000 for required mitigation at each of the impacted intersections shown in Table 17. Note that these mitigations will require the purchase of additional right-of-way, some of which is developed, which is why these measures are relatively costly. 5Assumes a new sewer line between the project site and the existing trunk line in King Road. Other costs such as school impact fees and park impact fees are not shown because those costs would be considered "development" costs to be paid by a developer which would not affect the sales price of the land. For the park scenario, there would be added costs associated with the actual construction of the park facilities and amenities. A-5