San Francisco International Airport airfield reconfiguration project EIR/EIS environmental review process : status summary

30 Pages·2000·2 MB·English

by  San Francisco International Airport (Calif.)

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
III llllll11llilllllllllll ;0 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
3 1223 07805 6646
RECONFIGURATION PROJECT
AIRFIELD
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
EIR/EIS
STATUS SUMMARY 1 - MARCH 2000
Additional public input is requested on the alternatives to be considered in the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement (EIR/EIS) for SFO's airfield reconfiguration project. Thetext and illustrations included herein are intendedto summarize |i
the current status ofthe EIR/EIS, and will be explained further at public information workshops schedDulOedCforUthMeEenNd oTf ASprilDanEdPTj
beginning of May 2000. Dates and locations are listed below.
7:00 PM - 9:00 PM April 24 San Rafael (Marin Civic Center)
7:00 Pfvl - 9:00 PM April 26 San Francisco City Hall (Light Court) DEC 1 1 2000
71:20:000PNMoo-n9:-002:P00MPM AMpariyl 129 MPialllobrAaleto((GLrueceineHSitlelsrnElCeommemnutnairytyScCheonotler)Gymnasium) SAN FRANCISCO
/3 Oakland (Lakeside Park Garden CenterVista Room) PUBLIC LIBRARY
rkshopsto learn more, and provide any additional suggestions regarding the environmental
figuration project. Written comments regarding the environmental assessment, including
ntact persons listed at the end of this summary by no laterthan May 19, 2000.
(SFO) proposesto reconfigure its airfield, and requires approval from the Federal Aviation
San Francisco PublicLibrary Francisco Planning Department's Office of Environmental Review (OER) and the FAA are
)rnia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
eport/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The EIR must be complete before the
Gpvemment InfornriLiiion Center ng a reconfiguration alternative, andthe EIS mustbe complete beforethe FAAcanconsider
San Francisco Public Library that incorporatesthe proposed reconfiguration and any SFO requestsforfederal funding or
100 Larkin Street • Fioor 5 reconfiguration.
San Francisco, CA. 02
!
REFERENCE BOOK ct reviewand approval includethe U.S.ArmyCorps of Engineers (Corps), the U.S. Fish and
nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies have agreed to be "cooperating
^reparation ofthe EIS. Ultimately, ifan alternative is selected that requires dredging and/or
Not to be taken from the Library :s for the project before SFO can proceed. Other agencies that will be consulted during
iai effects of the proposed project include the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
eservation Officer.
m\\ be askedto approve permitsfororreviewthe project before it can be implemented (i.e.,
Dwing: Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), California State Water
, . Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and
Game, State Lands Commission, BayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict, and California DepartmentofTransportation (Caltrans).
Additional agencies that may be consulted with or requested to take approval actions regarding the project, including potential
borrow, dredge material disposal, and mitigation sites (see pp. 9 - 10), include the following:
U.S.CoastGuard CityofFosterCity CaliforniaDepartmentofResources CityofMillbrae
CaliforniaCoastalCommission CityofBurlingame AlamedaCounty CityofBrisbane
SanMateoCounty CityofSan Bruno SonomaCounty CityofNovato
SolanoCounty CityofSan Rafael ContraCostaCounty CityofRichmond
SantaClaraCounty CCiittyyooffVBaelrlkeejoley CMiatryinofCOoauknltaynd CityofCorteMadera
CityofFremont CityofNewark CityofMenioPark
D SanFrancisco CityofMountainView CityofPaloAlto PortofOakland
REF 3rd CityofSunnyvale CityofRedwoodCity
387.7362 as MontereyBayNationalMarineSanctuary CityofSanMateo
Sa579 >aloAlto U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior CityofSanJose
2000
1

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
RECONFIGURATION PROJECT
AIRFIELD
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
EIR/EIS
STATUS SUMMARY 1 - MARCH 2000
Additional public input is requested on the alternativesto be considered in the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement (EIR/EIS) for SFO's airfield reconfiguration project. Thetext and illustrations included herein are intendedto summarize
the current status of the EIR/EIS, and will be explained further at public information workshops schedDulOedCforUthMeEenNd oTfASpril and
beginning of May 2000. Dates and locations are listed below. DEPT.
• 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM April 24 San Rafael (Marin Civic Center)
• 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM April 26 San Francisco City Hall (Light Court) UhL I 1 2000 {
•• 71:20:000PNMoo-n9:-002:P00MPM AMpariyl 129 MPialllobrAaleto(G(LrueceineHSitlelsrnElCeommemnutnairytyScCheonotelr)Gymnasium) SAN FRANCISCO jI
• 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM May 3 Oakland (Lakeside Park Garden CenterVista Room) PUBLIC LIBRARY i^
Please attendthe public information workshopsto learn more, and provide any additional suggestions regardingthe environmental
analysis of the proposed airfield reconfiguration project. Written comments regarding the environmental assessment, including
alternatives, may also be sent to the contact persons listed atthe end of this summary by no laterthan May 19, 2000.
;
AGENCIES INVOLVED I
\
The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) proposes to reconfigure its airfield, and requires approval from the Federal Aviation i
Administration (FAA) to do so. The San Francisco Planning Department's Office of Environmental Review (OER) and the FAA are
acting as lead agencies underthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
to prepare an Environmental impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The EIR must be complete before the
AirportCommission canconsideradopting a reconfiguration alternative, andthe EIS mustbecomplete beforethe FAAcan consider
approval ofa revised airportlayoutplanthat incorporates the proposed reconfiguration and any SFO requestsforfederal funding or
passengerfacility charges to-finance the reconfiguration.
j
OtherFederal agencies involved in project reviewand approval includethe U.S.ArmyCorps of Engineers (Corps), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies have agreed to be "cooperating '
agencies"with the FAA under NEPAforpreparation ofthe EIS. Ultimately, ifan alternative is selected that requires dredging and/or
Bay fill, the Corps must approve permits for the project before SFO can proceed. Other agencies that will be consulted during
preparation of the EIS regarding potential effects of the proposed project include the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Office of the California State Historic Preservation Officer.
State, regional, and local agencieswhowill be askedto approve permitsfororreviewthe project before itcan be implemented (i.e..
Responsible Agencies) include the following: Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), California State Water
Resources Control Board, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and
Game, State Lands Commission, BayAreaAirQuality Management District, and California DepartmentofTransportation (Caltrans).
Additional agencies that may be consulted with or requested to take approval actions regarding the project, including potential
borrow, dredge material disposal, and mitigation sites (see pp. 9 - 10), includethe following:
U.S.CoastGuard CityofFosterCity CaliforniaDepartmentofResources CityofMillbrae
CaliforniaCoastalCommission CityofBurlingame AlamedaCounty CityofBrisbane
SanMateoCounty CityofSanBruno SonomaCounty CityofNovate
SolanoCounty CityofSan Rafael ContraCostaCounty CityofRichmond
SNaanptaaCColuanratyCounty CCiittyyooffVBaelrlkeejoley CMiatryinofCOoauknltaynd CityofCorteMadera
CityofFremont CityofNewark CityofMenioPark
CityofSouthSanFrancisco
CityofMountainView CityofPaloAlto PortofOakland
CityofHayward CityofSunnyvale CityofRedwoodCity
CityofMilpitas MontereyBayNationalMarineSanctuary CityofSan Mateo
CityofEastPaloAlto U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior CityofSanJose
1
1
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND STATEMENT OF A wide range of potential alternatives to SFOs proposed
PURPOSE AND NEED reconfiguration were suggested by the public and govern-
ment agencies duringthe public inputor"scoping"periodfor
SFO has identified the following primary objectives of their the EIR/EIS. All of the suggested alternatives and alterna-
project: tive-components (i.e., actions that are notstand-alone alter-
natives but could be part of an alternative) are being as-
• Reduce existing and future flight delays in all weathercon- sessed objectively by FAA and OER to determine a reason-
ditions able range of feasible alternatives to carry forward into the
• Reduce human exposure to aircraft noise EIR/EIS analysis. As part of this assessment, the prelimi-
• Accommodate existing and anticipated new large aircraft naryfeasibilityofsuggestedalternativeswas initiallyconsid-
ered by asking the following questions:
For purposes of the EIR/EIS, the FAA, OER, and SFO have
beenworkingwith Stateand Federal agenciestodefineacon- • Could the airport maintain a reasonable level of service
cisestatementoftheproject's"PurposeandNeed"asrequired during construction of the alternative?
under NEPA. The statement of purpose is as follows: • Wouldthe alternative betechnologicallyfeasibleto imple-
ment within the next 10 years?
The purpose ofthe project is to reduce existing and projected • Couldthealternativebeimplementedconsistentwith Fed-
flight delays and accommodate existing and anticipated air- eral and State requirements?
craft, as well as projected flight demand, thereby achieving • Is there adequate airspace capacity to safely implement
efficient airport operations under all weather conditions while the alternative?
addressing the airport's goal of reducing human exposure to
noise. As part of this assessment, OER and FAA are considering
how to logically combine the suggested alternatives and al-
The need forthe project has been identified as follows: ternative-componentsthatpassedan initialevaluationofover-
all feasibility into a set of alternatives that could potentially
• SFO patrons currently experience operational delays dur- meet some or all of the project objectives. These alterna-
ing bad weather tives havebeen furtherevaluatedtoeliminatethosethatare
• Operational delays are expectedto beexperienced bySFO clearly infeasible based on technological or environmental
patrons in the future during good and bad weather constraints, orwhich would fail to effectively meetthestated
• Delays at SFO have National Airspace System (NAS) and purpose and need forthe proposed project.
regional airspace and transportation impacts
• Community concerns over aircraft noise Alternativesthatare underconsiderationforthe EIR/EIS are
• Local residentswantadditional relieffrom aircraft noise be- presented on pages 4 through 8. These include:
yond the requirements of CaliforniaTitle 21 and FAA noise
guidelines (e.g., residents want the use and enjoyment of • Alternative 1 - No Action
outdoor areas within the 65 CNEL zone) • Alternative 2 - System Management and Technological
• Future categories of large aircraft that are anticipated at Enhancements Alternatives
SFO require restrictions on aircraft ground movements or • Runway Reconfiguration Alternatives 3A and 3B (3A is
larger separations between taxiways. the same as SFO's Alternative A3)
• Runway Reconfiguration Alternative 4 (this is the same
as SFO's Alternative BX Refined)
EIR/EIS ALTERNATIVE SCREENING PROCESS • Runway Reconfiguration Alternative 5 (this is the same
as SFO's Alternative F2)
Consideration of possible ways to reconfigure the airfield at
SFO began in 1990when the San Francisco AirportCommis- Alternativeswhichhavebeenconsideredandeliminatedfrom
sion undertook a runway reconfiguration study at the request furtherdetailedstudyaredescribed on pages 7 and 8, along
of the Airport/Community Roundtable. The Roundtable is a with reasonsfortheirelimination. Decisions regarding inclu-
21-member group of representatives from communities af- sion or elimination of alternatives from the EIR/EIS are sub-
fected by aircraft noise from SFO, which has as its objective jecttochange and refinement as more information becomes
identifyingwaysto reduce noise. In 1998-99, an SFOfeasibil- available. Relevant information includes public and agency
itystudy identified 32 potential airfield reconfiguration alterna- comments, forecasts offuture airtravel demand, and results
tives to reduce noise, reduce flight delays, and accommodate ofpreliminaryimpactassessmentsandrefinedplanningstud-
new large aircraft.The SFO feasibility study suggested six al- ies. It should be noted that State and Federal agencies in-
ternatives for detailed analysis, and ultimately recommended volved in ongoing consultation have not yet concurred with
two options forfurther evaluation. SFO is continuing its plan- the range of alternatives presented.
ning efforts and expects toselectits proposed reconfiguration
alternative laterthis year.
3 1223 07805 6646
ALTERNATIVE 1 Both CEQA and NEPA require consideration ofa No Action Alternative as a basis ofcomparison
(NOACTION with other project alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, SFO would con-
ALTERNATIVE) tinue operating with its current runway system layout, would continue currently planned effortsto
enhancethe efficiencyofairport operations, and would implementcertain noise abatement mea-
sures. Some ofthe measures included in this alternative are the following:
• Simultaneous Offset Instrument Aapproach (SOIA) and Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)
technologies to reduce arrival delays in certain bad weather conditions
• Enhanced computer programs for airtraffic control (Center/TRACON automation system or
CTAS) and useofa differential global positioning system called Local Augmentation System
(LAAS) to shorten the "in-line" spacing between sequential aircraft
• All FAA approved noise abatement measures identified in SFO's 1983 Noise Compatibility
Plan
The current schedule anticipates that the SOIA/PRM technologies will be available at SFO in
summer 2001. SOIA/PRM is currently undergoing an FAA environmental analysis for use at
SFO. Similarly, CTAS and LAAStechnologieswould haveto be reviewedandcertified bythe FAA
for use. The EIR/EIS will have to make some assumptions regarding the implementation of
SOIA/PRM and global positioning system technologies and their effectiveness to reduce delay
underthe No Action Alternative.
ALTERNATIVE2 Underthis alternative, SFO would not construct any improvements requiring Bay fill, and would
(SYSTEM MANAGEMENT continue operating with its current runway system. Measures to be included in this alternative
ANDTECHNOLOGICAL have not been fully defined and the feasibility, as well as effectiveness, of both individual mea-
ENHANCEMENTS sures and potential combinations of measures will require detailed analysis. In addition to im-
provements described under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the following additional
ALTERNATIVE) measures will be evaluated for inclusion in Alternative 2:
• The ability of SFO to obtain FAA approval of noise and access controls under 14CFR Part
161 to reduce noise and congestion at SFO andthe abilityofthe FAAto implement controls
pursuant to their statutory authority (e.g., regulation of high density airports). The effect of
these controls on other Bay Area airports needs to be examined.
• Voluntaryimplementation ofaccessand noise restrictionsbytheairlines using or potentially
using SFO.
• Formation of Joint Powers Board or other regional authority to manage operations and
prioritizefuture investments at BayArea airports, such that any available capacity that may
exist atOakland and San Jose is utilized as a way to reduce delays and noise at SFO. Key
considerationswill bethe existing and projectedfuture airtravel demand and airfield capac-
ity at all Bay Area airports, airspace capacity, the number of connecting flights using SFO
and the destinations served, the ability of airlines to determine their own routes and ser-
vices under Federal law, and potential incentives or disincentives that could be used to
encourage airlines and passengers to use one airport rather than another.
• Technological enhancements that aviation experts and the FAA reasonably expect to be
available and certified within the next 10 years. The ElR/ElS will have to make some as-
sumptions regarding the implementation and effectiveness of these technologies.
• Additional noise abatement measures, such as additional noise insulation
and property acquisition.
RECONFIGURATIONALTERNATIVE 3A AND 3B
(Alternative 3A is the same as SFO's Alternative A3)
Reconfiguration Alternative 3A (SFO Alternative A3) would airfield lighting, runway safety areas, and an additional
construct a new 11,500 foot runway 4,300 feet northeast of emergencyresponse facility. The airport traffic control tower
the centerline of existing Runway 28R to permit two aircraft may also needto be relocated. This alternative could be con-
to land simulta- structed 3,400
neously during bad feet from exist-
ir.SOO' LENGTH
weather conditions, ingRunway28R
and would convert (instead of
existing Runway28L7 4,300 feet
10R to a taxiway. away) provided
Other airfield and the PRM tech-
taxiway changes, in- nology de-
cluding new naviga- scribed in Alter-
tionalaidsandairfield native 1 allows
lighting, would be simultaneous
constructed under arrivals in bad
NEWRUNWAY
thisalternativeforthe EXISTINGRUNWAYINUSE weather.
new Runway28R, as RUNWAYSTOBECLOSED The EIR/EISwill
would an additional CONSTRUCTIONINBAY
consider a wide
emergencyresponse range of con-
facility. The airport traffic control tower may also need to be structiontechniquesforany Bayfill, includingfill with rockdike
relocated, and runwaysafety areas would beconstructed ad- wall, fill with bulkhead wall, use ofpiles, floating structures, or
jacent to existing Runway 19L and 19R. some combination of these techniques.The precise nature of
these construction techniques has not been determined. The
SFO has suggestedthatthis alternativecould beconstructed
potential for combining features of Alternative 2 (i.e., techno-
with a 9,000 foot long runway instead of an 11,500 foot long logicalorproceduralenhancementsandadditional noisemea-
runway if existing Runway 28L were kept in use as a depar- sures) withthe reconfiguration alternatives needsto be deter-
ture-only runway (in- mined.
stead of a taxiway) 9.000' LENGTH
The surface
when wind conditions
area of new
force SFO into an "All
Bayfillrequired
West" condition (all under Alterna-
takeoffs and landings tive 3A is esti-
on the Runway 28 SSPARATlON mated at be-
system),whichoccurs tween 429-605
about 10 percent of acres, depend-
the time. ing on con-
struction meth-
Reconfiguration Al-
ods and taxi-
ternative 3B is being way configura-
NEWRUNWAY
studiedasavariantto EXISTINGRUNWAYINUSE tions. Fill
ReconfigurationAlter- RUNWAYSTOBECLOSED amounts for a
native3A. The option CONSTRUCTIONINBAY 9,000 foot run-
currently under con- way and forAl-
sideration forinclusion in the EIR/EIS wouldconstruct a new ternative 38 may be less (but are unknown at this time). Ac-
9,000 foot long runway built to Group V aircraft standards cording to the SFO Runway Feasibility Study construction of
approximately 3,400 feet northeast of the existing Runway Alternative 3Awould reduce the population living within the 65
28R, and would convert existing Runway 28L to use as a CNEL noise exposurezonefrom 10,300 to 8,600 persons. Po-
taxiway, except in the "All West Plan" described under 3A, tential noise benefits ofAlternative3B are expected to be simi-
above. This alternative would connect the new runway with larto 3A.These numberswill be refined in the EIR/EIS.
the existing airfield furtherto the southwest than Alternative This alternative would include habitat mitigation, borrow, and
3A, andwouldconstructsimilarairfieldandtaxiwaychanges, disposal sites as deschbed on pages 9-10, below.
including new navigational aids,
4
RECONFIGURATIONALTERNATIVE 4
(This aternative is the same as SFO'sAlternative BXRefined)
Reconfiguration Alternative 4 (SFO Alternative BX Refined) would construct a new 9,000foot runway (28R) 4,300 feet
northeastofexisting Runway 10L/28Rto allowtwoaircraftto landsimultaneouslyduring all badweatherconditions and
wouldconvertexisting Runway28Lforuse as ataxiway. Alternative4would alsoextend existing Runway 1R/19L7,500
feettothe northeast, convert runway 1 9Rto use asataxiway, andconstructanew9,000foot Runway 1R3,400feet
to the southeast of (extended) Runway 1R/19L. Other airfield and taxiway changes, including new taxiways, naviga-
tional aids, runway safety areas, and airfield lighting would be constructed under this alternative, along with an addi-
tional emergency response facility. The airport traffic control tower may also need to be relocated. A variation of this
alternative would keep existing Runway 28L open as a departure-only runway to be used only when wind conditions
force SFO into an "All West Plan," as described forAlternative 3, above.
Otherissuessuchasconstructiontechniques, mitigationsites, borrowsites, disposalsites, andapplication ofadditional
technological and procedural enhancements have notyet been determined.
Thesurface areaofnew Bayfill required underthisalternative is estimatedatbetween 888and 1,222 acres, depending
on construction methods. According to the SFO Feasibility Study, construction of Alternative 4 would reduce the
population living inthe 65 CNELnoiseexposurezonefrom 10,300to81 persons. These numberswill be refined in the
EIR/EIS.
5
RECONFIGURATIONALTERNATIVE 5
(This alternative is thie same as SFO's Alternative F2)
Reconfiguration Alternative 5 (SFO Alternative F2) would construct a new runway 4,300 feet northeast of existing
Runway 10L/28R to allow two aircraft to land simultaneously during all bad weather conditions, and would convert
existing Runway 28L to use as a taxiway. Alternative 5 would also extend existing Runways 1R/19L by 5,000 feet to
the northeast, convert runway 1Lyi9R for use as a taxiway, and construct a new 11,500 foot runway 4,300 feet
northwest of existing Runway 1R/19L. Other airfield and taxiway changes, including new taxiways, runway safety
areas, navigational aids, and airfield lighting would be constructed under this alternative, along with an additional
emergency response facility. The airporttraffic control tower may also need to be relocated.A variation ofthis alterna-
tive would keep existing Runway 28L open as a departure-only runway to be used only when wind conditions force
SFO into an "All West Plan," as described for Alternative 3, above.
Other issues such as construction techniques, mitigation sites, borrow sites, disposal sites, and application oftechno-
logical and procedural enhancements have not yet been determined.
The surface area ofnew Bayfill required underthis alternative is estimated at between 959 and 1,332 acres, depend-
ing on construction methods. According to the SFO Runway Feasibility Study, construction of Alternative 5 would
result in a reduction of the population living within the 65 CNEL noise exposure zone from 10,300 to 840 persons.
These numbers will be refined in the EIR/EIS.
RUNYMY LCNCTH
!1.500' fiUNWAY LEHCrH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City and County of San Francisco 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94103-2414
PLANNINGCOMMISSION ADMINISTRATION CURRENTPLANNING/ZONING LONGRANGEPLANNING
(.415). 558-b,37» ^^y.,558.^09 FAX:[phone] FAX:[phone] FAX:[phone]
SCH#99072002
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
To: Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties
From: Planning Department
City and County ofSan Francisco
Office ofEnvironmental Review
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94103-2414
Subject: Notice ofPreparation ofa DraftEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR): San Francisco International
Airport Airfield Reconfiguration Project (Case No. 1999.403E)
The San Francisco Planning Department is the Lead Agency and is preparingan Environmental ImpactReportfor
the project identified below. We need to know the views ofyouragency as to the scope andcontentofthe
environmental information which is germane to youragency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the
proposedproject. Youragency will need to use the EIRpreparedby ouragency when considering yourpermitor
otherapproval forthe project.
1999.403E/SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTAIRFIELDRECONFIGURATION PROJECT EIR
ProjectDescription: San Francisco International Airport(SFO)proposes to reconfigure its runways to address
three issues at the airport: (1) reduce existing andprojected flightdelays underall weatherconditions (2)
accommodate existing and anticipated aircraft and projected flight demand; (3) reduce human exposure to noise.
Some alternatives would require expansion into San Francisco Bay. (Please refer to the attached materials formore
details).
This Notice ofPreparation is the secondnoticebeingdistributed to youragency and the public to ensure maximum
inputnow thata preliminary range ofalternatives have been identified. We propose to conduct five public
informational workshops to solicit comments from the public on the on-going Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
preparation process.
Date Time Location
April 24 7-9p.m. San Rafael - Marin Center, AvenueoftheFlags
April26 7-9p.m. San Francisco -City Hall/North LightCourt
#1 Dr. Carlton B. GoodlettPlace, First Floor
April29 12:00-2pm PaloAlto- LucieSternCommunity Center
1305 MiddlefieldRoad
May 1 7-9p.m. Millbrae- GreenhillsElementary School/Gymnasium
401 LudemanLane
May3 7-9p.m. Oakland- LakesideParkGardenCenter/VistaRoom
666Bellevue Avenue
In addition to submitting comments at any ofthe workshops, written comments will be accepted until the close of
business on May 19, 200Q. Written comments should be .sent to: Ms. Hillary Gitelman, Environmental Review
Officer, SaivFranaJisco Byahning Department, 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94103-2414.
Hillary iB. Gitemfan Date
Environmental Review Officer
TO: Interested Parties
RE: 1999.403E - San Francisco International Airport Airfield Reconfiguration
Project EIR/EIS - Public Information Workshops
The San Francisco Planning Department and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in conjunction
with San Francisco International Airport (SFO) invite you to attend a public information workshop
regarding the on-going preparation ofan Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
(EIR/EIS) for SFO's proposed airfield reconfiguration project. Five public workshops will be held to
describe the airfield reconfiguration alternatives preliminarily identified for inclusion in the EIR/EIS and
those rejected from further consideration. Preliminary information will also be presented regarding
potential borrow and disposal sites and potential mitigation sites. A summary ofrelevant information is
enclosed for your review in advance ofthe workshops. The workshops are scheduled as follows:
Date Time Location
April 24 7 - 9 p.m. San Rafael - Marin Center, Avenue ofthe Flags
Exhibition Hall, Madrone Room
April 26 7 -9 p.m. San Francisco - City Hall/North Light Court
#1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, First Floor
April 29 12:00 -2 p.m. Palo Alto - Lucie Stern Community Center
1305 Middlefield Road
May 1 7-9 p.m. Millbrae - Greenhills Elementary School/Gymnasium
401 Ludeman Lane
May 3 7 - 9 p.m. Oakland -Lakeside Park Garden Center/Vista Room
666 Bellevue Avenue
All workshops are open to the public and will include a 15-20 minute introduction followed by an "open
house" meeting format, where the public is invited to review graphic materials and talk to agency staffand
consultants. Written and oral comments will be accepted.
In conjunction with the public workshops, the San Francisco Planning Department is also distributing the
enclosed supplemental Notice ofPreparation ofan EIR, and will be accepting further written comments on
the scope ofthe environmental review and the EIR/EIS alternatives.
Written comments will be accepted until the close ofbusiness on May 19, 2000 and should be sent to: Ms.
Hillary Gitelman, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco Planning Department, 1660 Mission
Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94103-2414.