Good evening.

My name is Carlos Rosario, and I'm the chair of the planning commission.

Welcome to the planning commission meeting.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

The parking validation machine for the garage under City Hall is located near the entrance.

Please join me if you are able to uh pledge allegiance to the flag.

The United States of America to the Republic.

Under God.

Invisible Liberty and Justice Crawl.

We'll start with the roll call.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Here.

Commissioner Barroso.

Here.

Commissioner Bondal?

Here.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Here.

Commissioner Cow.

Here.

Commissioner Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Escobar.

Here.

Commissioner Wynne.

Perhaps not here yet.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Commissioner Young said he would not be able to make it.

And I am here, so that is nine.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, and we have quorum.

Okay, summary of hearing procedures.

If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located at the table near the audiovisual technician and deposit the completed card in the basket.

There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and near the side entrance.

The hearing procedure is as follows.

After staff's presentation, applicants may make up to a five-minute presentation.

During the public comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards in the order they are received for members of the public who attend in person.

As your name is called, lined up in front of the microphone in the front of the chamber.

Generally, each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes.

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted to each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers, and other factors.

Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted.

After public testimony, the applicant and or appellant may make closing remarks for an additional five minutes.

Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers.

Response to commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

The public hearing will then be closed, and the planning commission will take action on the item.

The planning commission may request staff to respond to public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss them.

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to only raising those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

The planning commission's action on rezonings, pre-zonings, general plan amendments, and code amendments is only advisory to the city council.

The city council will hold public hearings on these items.

Sections 20 section 20, 120, 400 of the municipal code provides the procedures for legal protests to the city council on rezonings and pre-zonings.

The planning commission's action on conditional use permits is appealable to the city council in accordance with section 2010 220 of the municipal code.

Agendas and all staff reports for this meeting may be accessed at the city's website.

Before I begin, um let's see.

Commissioner Oliverio is here by teleconference.

And before I begin, I want to remind the planning commission members and members of the public to follow the code of conduct at our meetings.

This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only and addressing the full body.

Public speakers will not engage in conversation with the commissioners or staff.

All members of the planning commission, staff, and public are expected to refrain from abusive language, reputed repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in a removal from the meeting.

This meeting of the planning commission will now come to order.

Public comment.

Public comments of the planning commission on non-agendized items.

Please fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician.

Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes.

The commission cannot take any formal action without the action being properly noticed and placed on agenda.

In response to public comment, the planning commission is limited to the following options.

Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public, requesting staff to report back on a member on a matter at a subsequent meeting, or directing staff to place the item on a future exent agenda.

Do we have any speakers for public comment on items not on the planning commission agenda?

No.

No.

All right.

Okay.

Agenda item three, deferrals and removals from calendar.

Any item scheduled for hearing this evening for which deferral is being requested will be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral or removal.

Staff will provide an update on items for which deferral and removal is being requested.

If you want to change any of the deferral dates recommended or speak to the question of deferring or removing these or any other items, you should say so at this time.

Staff, do we have any items to defer today?

No items for deferral.

Okay, on to agenda item number four.

Consent calendar.

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are considered to be routine and will be adopted by one motion.

If a member of the commission requests debate, a separate vote or recusal on a particular item, that item may be removed from the consent calendar by the chair and considered separately.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed from the consent calendar by the chair.

Staff will provide an update on the consent calendar.

If you wish to speak on these items individually, please come to the podium at this time.

Are there any speak?

All right.

We have a motion to approve.

Do we second?

Second.

Okay.

We will go to a roll call vote then.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barrosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynne is absent.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young is absent.

And myself is a yes, making that nine with two absent.

The consent calendar carries.

Okay.

Public hearing.

Agenda item five.

Generally, the public hearing items are considered by the planning commission in the order in which they appear on the agenda.

However, please be advised that the commission may take items out of order to facilitate the agenda.

Such uh as to accommodate significant public testimony, or we may defer discussion of the items to later agendas for public hearing and time management purposes.

We'll start with agenda item 5A, ER25259.

So staff.

Do we have a presentation?

We do, yes.

Uh good evening, Chair Commissioners.

I'm John Wilson.

I'm an airport planner with the Department of Aviation.

I'm joined by Ryan Sheel and Senior Planner Patrick Hanson, Deputy Director for Airport Planning and Development, and Patricia Singh, Assistant Director of Aviation.

Also joined by environmental project manager Nunuen, uh supervising planner Tina Gard with PBC.

May it tonight to present an amendment to the airport master plan.

We'll start off with some background.

The airport master plan is the long-range guide for facility development at the airport.

The goal is to ensure that all airport facilities, whether that's our roadways, terminals, the airfield, all have sufficient capacity to meet future aviation demand.

The airport master plan was first adopted in 1997.

It was an incorporated into Municode.

The municipal municipal code requires that all airport projects be included in or consistent with the airport master plan.

Like any other business, the aviation industry undergoes changes over time, including improved quieter aircraft, new aeronautical regulations, and changes to passenger behavior.

Therefore, MUNICOD also includes a process to make amendments to the master plan.

Since 1997, there have been 17 amendments to the airport master plan responding to the changing needs of the airport to meet that future demand.

The latest master plan amendment to come before this commission for planning commission was in April 2020.

It adjusted the planning horizon from 2027 to 2037 and included air fuel safety projects, major landside and terminal projects, uh including the planned construction of Terminal C.

The current iteration of the master plan contains some 90 capital improvement projects.

We note that not all these projects may be built.

We only move forward when there's adequate passenger demand and financial capacity for any given project.

So uh we're back here six years later with with another amendment to the airport master plan.

Uh there are a number of reasons for this.

Uh the forecasts, uh, the the the aviation forecasts that the airport is using at this point are stale, especially after the pandemic.

These forecasts were prepared in 2017 and were based on the market conditions, economic conditions, and aviation industry conditions at that time.

We've seen changes uh since the pandemic in how people in our region travel, uh, a reduction in the amount of business travel at SJC, industry-wide disruptions to aircraft fleet deliveries, changes to airline network planning, and so for the purposes of planning the airport's future capital improvement program, it's crucial to understand future demand at the airport and to adjust it when necessary.

The revised master plan and forecast brings clarity to where and when the airport will place its limited resources in the coming years.

So secondly, the FAA updates their design guidelines over time.

We're making some refinements and additions to the suite of airfield projects in our master plan to conform to the latest FAA federal guidelines.

And then finally, we've added information to respond to a new and emerging segment of aviation known as advanced air mobility.

A little on that in the next coming slides.

So what is uh this amendment contain?

Uh it contains new aviation demand forecasts across all segments of aviation.

We kept the same horizon year, 2037.

The purpose of this was to refine our previous forecasts and uh to understand where we're really going to be in in 2037, given that we've had uncertainty and upheaval in the aviation industry over the last few years before we start looking out another decade or two.

There are also three main changes to the airport's capital improvement plan.

Uh, there are some minor updates to taxiway projects.

Uh the includes the replacement of the air traffic control tower.

Just to note that while we're adding this to the city's master plan, this project is fully funded and built by the FAA.

And then third, uh we've identified several potential router port sites at the airport.

Um, just to introduce it, road reports are one component of a new and emerging development in the aviation industry called advanced air mobility or AAM.

Uh, this is uh essentially a system that's based around a set of electric electrified uh vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.

Um, you know, new technology that's designed to fly short distances within a small set region like the Bay Area.

Uh we're not proposing building a verteport.

We're not replacing, we're not proposing replacing any airport infrastructure.

Uh this amendment is a first step that allow the airport to focus our future planning efforts and determine the feasibility of accommodating this new uh segment of aviation here at SJC.

Sorry, and lastly, uh the amendment contains an addendum to the 2020 Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report.

All right, so here we have the new aviation demand forecasts for 2037 in the right-hand yellow column.

So as we look at the current master plan forecasts, we see that the number of passengers anticipated in 2037 has been revised down approximately 26% from 22 and a half million to 16.75 million in our new forecasts.

Just to note here that in 2025, SJC processed 10.6 million passengers.

Similarly, the number of passenger aircraft operations we anticipated in our current master plan for 2037 was also revised down 20% from 184,000 passenger operations, an operation that is essentially an aircraft takeoff and landing, um, to 147,000 passenger operations per year.

So that's on the passenger front, which is the majority of our operations, but we do serve other segments of aviation that continue to grow, on the other hand.

Um, that includes a general aviation operations that are increase approximately 36% over our previous forecasts and air taxi operations, just kind of the corporate business uh aircraft operations increasing approximately 49%.

So a lot of growth in that segment that we need to account for in our master plan.

So while the airport anticipates growth in passengers through the horizon year, we'll we're gonna continue seeing growth, it'll just be at a slower rate of growth than we may have anticipated pre-pandemic.

The airport will continue to have capacity to meet future aviation demand now.

So the map here illustrates um the modification of capital improvement plan projects.

We have projects to narrow several taxiways that have excess concrete, bringing them up to FAA design standards.

We have projects to remove exit taxiways in high energy portions of our runway where arriving or departing aircraft are traveling at high rates of speed.

This is something else that the FAA has identified that needs addressing, and then the replacement control tower is on the west side of the airport, top of the map, immediately adjacent the existing control tower.

And then finally, that there are several roadport sites overlaid over several areas around the airport.

So this amendment has uh been previously heard by the airport commission.

That was on February the 9th, and the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, March 25th, where we received a determination of consistency with the airport county land use compatibility plan.

We're here tonight to request the planning commission's recommendation to council for approval of the amendment to the airport master plan, and I'm happy to take any questions following the presentation from our partners in PBC.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Planning Commissioners.

I'm Nuna Wynn with PBCE.

Thank you, John.

The environmental impacts of the project were addressed in an addendum to the San Jose Maneta International Airport Master Plan final Environmental Impact Report, which is certified by City Council on April 2020.

It was found that no new or significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified EIR has been identified, nor have any new mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified.

And this project would not result in a substantial increase in the magnitude of any significant environmental impacts previously identified in the certified EIR.

Therefore, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and addendum is the appropriate level of environmental kill environmental clearance for the project.

Next slide, please.

And therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission recommend that the city council adopt a resolution approving the addendum to the San Jose Meneta International Airport Master Plan integrated final EIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and also to adopt a resolution approving the major amendment to the airport master plan for the San Jose Maneta International Airport.

This concludes that presentation.

Okay, at this time we'll do public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

So we have two comments here.

Jim Stallman and Betsy Megus.

Could you please come forward?

Uh to the uh podium in the middle.

Hi, Jim Stallman.

We live in Saratoga.

Um I'd ask that the uh planning commission here please see that the uh A Wert bicycle pedestrian access to the airport is part of the master plan, even if it's not uh if it doesn't change the motion tonight, it could be uh a comment sent along to the uh city council.

I don't know who's closing that access point, but it there's a notice up says it closes on May 1st.

That access point was put in at the request in the effort of Amos Rendler three day three decades ago.

Amos was an airport worker.

The airport is a larger employer, it's used by uh employees and has uh bicycle routes in the county.

Uh the closure would require um crossing freeways two or three times and several miles of uh detour.

Um Oakland has a class one access, San Francisco has class two, and San Jose Airport.

Um I don't know if you want to be uh third on the pecking order, but uh you you could uh ensure that we don't lose this access and and make it even worse than it all already is.

Thank you.

Good evening, Betsy Magus.

Um member of the I'm a resident of the city of Santa Clara, member of the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees for both the city of Santa Clara and VTA speaking tonight for myself only.

Um the airport master plan includes the usage of Ewart Road for uh bicycle connection for public but public use.

And this amendment does not change that.

Despite this, the community has seen by way of uh posted sign on the entrance to Ewart Road that the route will be closed on May 1st of this year.

And we're trying to get answers as to why it is being closed and whether it that's actually an appropriate thing to do.

We're calling on the on the commission and the city council to affirm that Ewart Road should continue to be open to public bicycle use and to advise and direct San Jose airport staff not to close the route.

This route, as uh Mr.

Stallman indicated, is uh an important connection around the airport for bicycles.

If this route is closed, it is not closing an option, it's closing the option.

The places to bike uh are very, very limited, and they're high speed traffic.

There's a freeway connection.

Um it's it's extremely uncomfortable.

So I I ask that you uh I think you've probably gotten some mail on this topic already.

I ask that you take a good look at that and um and question whether whether this is um something that is uh within the uh question where this decision has come from and whether it is an appropriate thing to do.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stallman and uh Ms.

Megus, uh thank you both for coming tonight.

I uh very much appreciate your concerns.

I've been in the airport myself.

So it the your road and the bicycle path is actually not part of the airport plan.

And um city attorney, would you be able to explain it so that way not only them but anybody watching online hopefully can understand a little bit more about what is going on and how if they're interested in talking to the city about the road, what their potential options are?

Yes, thank you for the question.

It's a little bit comp it's a little complicated.

Thank you for the question, Chair.

Yes, the uh comments related to UR Road.

Um road closures not contemplated as part of the airport master plan that is before this planning commission tonight.

Um it is not something that has been agendized or noticed, and so um it is not something that this planning commission may act on tonight uh due to uh the Brown Act regulations that govern this body.

Um I will also say, just having briefly looked at the public comments, um, that the closure of UWRT Road is not contemplated as part of the airport master plan.

It was contemplated as part of the Guadalupe River Trail Plan that went to City Council on uh April 14th, so last Tuesday, and was approved uh as part of the consent calendar.

Um I I do believe that there were similar public comments that were submitted as part of that item that went before city council.

Um and so uh since closure of the of the road is not contemplated as part of this plan, but rather that plan that would have been the appropriate venue and the appropriate uh opportunity to speak and to uh ultimately have council make a decision.

Unfortunately, uh while this commission can hear the planning commit uh the the comments on URET road, uh this this commission is not uh uh permitted tonight to make a decision on the closure uh or not of URT Road.

So your road is not included in what we're talking about tonight.

It was included in a previous item, which was at City Council last week.

Yes.

And then if they wanted to discuss potential things that the city could do to us, you know, to help folks that want to ride their bicycles without having to cross freeways, what would their best course of action be?

I think that there are opportunities.

Um I can't provide legal advice, but uh there are opportunities to continue to reach out to your individual representatives, your council members to make sure that those matters are properly brought before the council.

Um it does look like there have been a lot of public comment that was submitted to the council before the item.

Um I would I would continue to pursue those avenues.

Um unfortunately it's not something that this planning commission could could decide.

Sure.

So I certainly think contacting what is it, uh bicycle Silicon Valley, and then SV Bicycle Club or you know um go ahead.

Through the Chair Maniras and the deputy director of planning, I think the Department of Transportation may also be a good resource if you have questions about the bike plan.

Um the Department of Transportation, they are the lead department on the uh Guadalupe River Trail Plan, and I believe that they also include the airport in their discussions regarding the Trimble Road and the improvements over there, the de la Cruz improvements that was all contemplated as part of that plan for the closure of your road.

And of course, there's vision zero, and nobody wants to leave anybody unsafe.

So we definitely want you to know the avenues and folks you can contact.

Okay.

Do we have any member other members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Okay, so no more okay.

Do we have a motion or any of the commissioners would you like to discuss?

Motion to approve.

Motion question.

Yes, Commissioner Oliverio.

Great.

Uh thank you, Chad.

Um, given how significantly the patent forecast and change of 2020, what assumptions in the new uh 2037 forecast are you least confident in?

And how's the airport planning for that risk?

I didn't make a start.

I I can make it a start at least.

The what goes into the forecast.

So I can go ahead and take that one.

Patrick Hanson, acting deputy director with plan development at the airport.

So the question was um given the substantial changes in the original forecasts based um a few years back and the recent reduction revised forecasts, um, which are reducing the numbers by a few million per year.

The question is uh what is the least um uh part of that that we're confident in in it to be honest?

It's we don't know what we don't know.

Obviously, nobody knew COVID was gonna happen, and those uh numbers dropped off significantly.

So, in terms of planning for future development, the airport master plan allows us to have the potential to build out those 90 or so um future projects through 2037.

That doesn't mean that we would actually pursue building all of those projects unless uh the fiscal kind of um uh uh scenario um supports us to move forward with building certain uh capital development projects.

So we would error on the side of caution and make sure that we're in a good place uh and fiscally responsible before pursuing any of those projects in the airport capital um master plan.

So um, although it allows us to pursue those projects, we will definitely be um conservative in our approach financially to make sure that we have the numbers as far as passenger traffic that support those um future development projects.

Thanks.

Uh let me uh state the question again.

Given how significantly passenger forecasts have changed since 2020, what assumptions, what assumptions in the new 2037 forecasts are you least confident in?

And how is the airport planning for that risk?

So it is the question to do with inputs into the the forecast itself, right?

We we prefer to what assumptions in the forecast are you least confident in, and how are you planning for that risk?

So let's name the what are those assumptions that you have the least confidence in, and what's the plan for that risk?

Good evening.

This is Patty Singh.

I am the assistant director of aviation, and I believe that the one that we're least confident is really uh the passenger volume.

Um there has been many changes in the aviation.

And the Bay Area specifically, uh passenger recovery has been very slow.

So right now, even that forecast for 2037, it is an assumption, and I would say this is the one that we're least confident.

Got it.

Overall aggregate passenger volume, correct?

Yes, and so this demand capacity, what technology is the airport using to deploy to understand the forecast?

Is this an Excel spreadsheet?

No, we actually hire vendors, uh consulting.

A third party, yes, and they have the expertise and the tools to conduct such uh evaluation.

And they share with you the actual uh source data and and the tabulations and what the assumptions are, and if I change, you know, uh 500,000 passengers versus 750,000 passengers, then you see different results.

That is correct.

Got it, and is that a public record?

Yes, it is.

Just to add to that, the um the the full report by our consultant is included as um an appendix in the addendum to the I did not see that, I saw just the agenda item.

I'll go look at that next.

And then you sort of answered this question, but want to go back specifically on the capital projects.

Which capital projects would be deferred, potentially resized or reconsidered if the passenger demand for revenues underperform?

Do you have like a list of the pecking order?

What capital projects would fall off?

Yes, I think first and foremost, the expansion terminal C would be one that we would uh delay.

Obviously, the passenger numbers have to be there for us to go forward with a uh large project like that, and then also the um the short-term term uh uh parking garage expansion in lot four would also be put on hold.

Those are two of the largest projects uh that would be put on hold um until the actual numbers in passenger traffic are there to support uh the future expansion.

Thank you for that.

And then my last one, these uh forecasts which ultimately affect revenue coming to the airport.

How does that affect debt coverage or your when you're setting your rates?

Is that again, do you have that modeled out?

Because you know, ultimately the airport needs to be self-sufficient and not rely on the city's general fund.

That is absolutely correct, and we have been uh very diligent uh about applying the numbers and putting everything through the model, but currently uh we do have an agreement with the air carriers that serve um, I would say the largest uh the signatory carriers that serve SJC and they are uh guaranteors um so if we do have very limited passengers, we would still be able to cover that debt.

Great, and then this does peak one more question for me since we are relying on a third party rather than our own staff.

What does it cost for that consultant to provide you these forecasts?

Yeah, the cost for this set of forecasts was about 200,000.

Wow.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Commissioner Cantrell.

Okay, well, thanks, Commissioner Oliverio.

That answered a lot of questions I had.

Uh one last question would be um do you consider any demand creation activities at all?

Do you guys plan for that?

Do you attempt that, or do you rely on your airline partners to do that?

Are you searching for new partners?

How do you create more demand for the airport in face of these types of numbers?

We are a facility to serve uh the airlines, and um even though we cannot generate passenger volume, uh we do have a member in our staff that is our air service development uh person, and he is in constant contact with the airlines, current uh airlines and also future.

Uh we are always looking at the market, seeing what are the routes that would benefit our citizens and our community, and he's always talking to them, even though they may be planning for five years from now.

We are in conversations now, so when that time comes, we are always top of mind.

Obviously, I don't know your business.

I'm just curious from because if this were my business, I would be concerned.

Um I'm sure there are routes that I'd love to see.

I'm sure that there are opportunities maybe to discount something to get something more, uh, maybe in the future, maybe planning activities and extend over time with partners.

Are you guys looking at any opportunities like that?

I it concerns me to see this as a citizen here.

This type of potential decline is is pretty significant.

So I'd I'd love to know that you guys are working on ways to try to make San Jose a place that people want to come to or leave to go to somewhere else.

Yeah.

That's that's all.

Thank you.

We are allowed uh by federal regulation to do uh certain incentives to secure service.

Um those are of course forefront, but unfortunately, if the passengers are not there, uh the airlines are hesitant, right, to try at this moment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next we'll hear from Commissioner Bandal and then Vice Chair Bickford.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh thank you guys for your presentation and your preparation uh for being here tonight.

Um, you know, two of the the highest recorded years were 2018 and 2019.

Uh 2018 had passenger demand of 14.3 million and 2019 had 15.7.

That's the highest in the whole graph.

Um why do you guys think that uh that was the highest at that time?

Was there something that we were doing special that time, or was it just all the airports were busy, or just curious on your thoughts?

Thank you.

For a time, SJC was the fastest growing airport in the nation.

You know, we'd love to return to that.

It was a confluence of um the factors, including uh you know, things like you know the growth of our region and the economic growth of our region, and then there was also a factor of um competition between several of our mainline carriers.

Um and then that was the fact that we had secured several international routes at the time, and and that was feeding some of that domestic traffic.

So we had kind of this perfect um you know set of events that allowed for that growth that we just don't see right now.

Unfortunately, we we're seeing a lot of this in in the region, right?

Oakland is having the same seeing the same effects we are down here in San Jose.

Do you think working work from home is affecting these numbers?

Yeah, 100%.

Uh the lack of business travel.

Uh we've we've fundamentally changed the way we operate in the Bay Area alone, you know, as well as the country, but the Bay Area itself has not recovered.

SFO, you know, has returned to their levels, but Oakland and SJC.

Uh we we have not reached our pre-pandemic numbers.

Uh as you can tell, we're we're at about 10.6 million from almost 16 million.

So uh we do expect that to impact impact us in the long term, right?

With with teams with Zoom, it's it's fundamentally changed how everyone travels.

And then um I I believe you mentioned international travel uh back in 2018-2019.

I'm I'm kind of familiar with just being a passenger.

Uh I know there was a lot more airlines coming, a lot more options that were you can uh skip going to SFO or Oakland and catch something, uh long-haul flight from SFO.

Are you guys working on anything like that?

Is there any is there uh any anything that could uh potentially be the same coming back or any kind of exploration in bringing in more flights long distance or kind of going back to kind of what what Commissioner Tech Control was saying, um just you know we we we're all here in the in the vested interest, we all love San Jose, and that's why we're here, and you guys are working hard, I'm sure, towards that.

So we're just kind of curious as uh what is it that we can do or what's going on, yeah.

We sure hold those conversations.

Uh we still have Air Canada and British Airways in our books.

Um however, there's a lot going on in the industry um in aviation, like shortage of aircraft.

Um that it's really weighing on their decision, and I believe that currently there's a lot of uncertainty and uh increased inflation and everything, that it's affecting the decision making of the passengers.

We also believe that once the region um sees uh an increase in passenger volume, um, that San Francisco International uh will reach capacity, and that will most likely start pushing a lot of those flights back into SJC and consequently also Oakland.

So it is uh something that of course we're looking forward to, but at this moment we cannot tell how soon we're gonna have it back.

Thank you guys.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I didn't notice Vice Chair McFord.

Yeah, I noticed on the the diagrams, um, there were a potential for four spaces on the airport property, uh, four VTAL vertical takeoff and landing.

Is it the plan to evaluate those and decide on one or two?

Are you waiting for the demand to come in to make a decision?

How is that who is that gonna go?

Right.

So this industry is seeing a huge amount of investment and a huge amount of interest.

We have you know several uh, or at least one of the the aircraft manufacturers is based right here in San Jose Archer.

And so what we want to do is be ahead of the curve and assess these sites uh for the feasibility with from kind of an aviation perspective, right?

Are there any issues with obstacles or any issues with you know conflict conflicts with air traffic?

So we want to make sure that when the technology is ready, um the airport is ready as well.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Actually, really glad to hear some forward thinking there.

I I was just looking um earlier I didn't want to say this, but I'll say it now.

Um it feels like you you might enter a demand death loop.

Um if you if there's not an any increase in demand here, I mean prices are gonna go nuts.

Um it just really kind of concerns me that you know we we've got to figure this out.

This this is kind of wow.

I mean, I that means I'll have to drive to San Francisco.

And as I was planning a trip actually just a few days ago, I was in, I was noticing that you know that might be a commute I would have to take because I couldn't find uh the flights at the prices I was willing to pay.

So big problem.

I I hope we can get in front of it.

To the chair, if I can comment on that.

I think you know that is something that all of us recognize.

Of course, that is not what is before the commission tonight.

It's really the airport master plan, the vagaries of the global economy and the changes to airline services are something beyond our control and certainly beyond the purview of this commission, but appreciate all of the comments around that.

All right.

Before we go to the uh roll call vote, I would like to say that I'm glad to see the city of San Jose taking the lead as the capital of Silicon Valley and providing verteports.

I was often concerned about where these vertical uh machines would take off and land, particularly if it was going to be in a parking lot and rocks would come up and mess up my paint on my car.

So I'm glad to see that the airport is tackling this head on.

All right, we can now go to a roll call vote, if that's all right, to the chair.

I know we had a motion for the are you seconding the second okay, thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Or item five A, Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynne is not with us.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young is not with us, and I to MAS, that is 9-0, and the motion carries.

All right.

Okay.

All right, on to agenda item 5B, the environmental review handbook.

Staff, do we have a presentation?

Yes, we do.

Um thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Court Hitchens, and I am a supervising planner on the environmental review team in PBCE.

Here with me is our principal planner, David Keon.

We are here to present the proposed environmental review policy item.

And this evening we'll be discussing the components of this policy, including the environmental review handbook and the environmental standard permit conditions.

Okay.

So in this presentation, we will provide an overview of the proposed environmental review policy that includes adoption of the environmental review handbook.

I'll just call it the handbook, and adoption of the environmental standard permit conditions, and I'll call those SPCs.

We will also summarize the key components of each document, briefly highlight related streamlining efforts related to the environmental review process, and discuss outcomes and next steps for this policy.

The proposed action is the adoption of a city council policy to formalize the environmental review handbook and the standard permit conditions.

This policy implements recommendations from the city's 2022 environmental review audit, consolidates the planning division's environmental review requirements into a single policy document, establishes consistent thresholds of significance and consistent analysis requirements for environmental review documents prepared for projects in San Jose, and clarifies expectations for technical studies and other environmental planning related documentation.

Overall, the intent of this policy is to streamline the city's environmental review process while maintaining consistency and legal defensibility for clearing projects under CEQA and NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act.

So the handbook is intended to define the roles, expectations, and deliverables for applicants, consultants, and city staff during the environmental review process, from project scoping and application submittal through permit entitlement.

This includes clarifying thresholds of significance, establishing standardized approaches to analysis, and providing guidance for preparing CEQA and NEPA documents up front.

As mentioned, the goals of this policy are to improve document consistency for staff, the public, and reviewing bodies, while also shortening review times and reducing overall project costs.

While the handbook does provide some new and more specific guidance related to the preparation of environmental documents in San Jose, it also consolidates existing policies into one document.

The handbook is organized into eight sections for ease of reading and finding information.

These sections address roles and expectations for performance, city target review timelines for deliverables, thresholds of significance for determining environmental impacts, and analysis guidelines for all of the SQL resource areas, scope of work requirements, and guidance for preparing both CEQA and NICAPA CEQA and NEPA documentation.

In this presentation, we will discuss section four to elaborate on the proposed thresholds of significance and to briefly discuss sections six and seven of the handbook.

These sections provide city specific guidance for preparing environmental documents under CEQA and EPA and clarify expectations for each document type, in addition to guidance provided within the SQL guidelines and the Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD for NEPA projects.

These sections are intended to improve the quality and consistency of submittals and will allow for consultants and applicants to be aware of any city specific requirements they will need to be prepared to provide, allowing for a more transparent process and development of better project schedules from the start.

Important to note here is that the handbook is not intended to replace the requirements of the CEQA guidelines or the HUD guidelines, but instead will serve to supplement and clarify the CECO and NEPA guidelines information specific to projects in San Jose.

So to touch on section four of the handbook, Thresholds of Significance.

Section 4 provides thresholds of significance for environmental impacts and also provides guidance for analysis to be used across CEQA resource areas.

Adherence to this section ensures that staff and consultants apply consistent thresholds to determine impacts for different types of projects.

The section also incorporates existing thresholds of significance that are already in use as adopted through the city's general plan, other city council policies, and applicable external agencies.

Section 4 standardizes how thresholds of significance are applied under CEQA by identifying the appropriate thresholds for each resource area, whether from the CEQA guidelines, the general plan, city council policies such as the transportation analysis policy, or external agencies like the Bay Area Air District.

In practice, these thresholds are applied through an initial screening process to determine whether impacts can be addressed through the relevant standard permit conditions or may require further analysis, followed by evaluation of project specific conditions to support a consistent determination of significance across environmental documents.

The thresholds of significance in the handbook do not change CECO thresholds.

The handbook standardizes which thresholds to use for certain projects and provides guidance on how to apply these thresholds.

The section on thresholds of significance also formalizes methodologies for evaluating specific impact areas, including noise from construction as well as shade and shadow impacts from development of taller buildings in downtown areas.

As an example for projects requiring construction timelines longer than 12 months, the noise impact thresholds from the Federal Transit Administration's transit noise and vibration impact assessment manual would be the standard to evaluate against.

The City of San Jose does not currently have established quantifiable construction noise limits and adoption of the FTA construction noise thresholds within the handbook will allow for a standard approach to studying potential construction noise impacts.

As it relates to shade and shadow impacts, the thresholds of significance section will formalize the specific days and times that need to be studied to identify potential impacts, allowing for consistency between analysis for different projects and for reports prepared by different parties.

The standard permit conditions or SPCs are intended to streamline the environmental review process by addressing common impacts associated with typical urban development projects.

Adoption of the SPCs will reduce the need in some cases for project specific technical studies and will also support implementation of general plan policies, including for statutorily exempt projects.

A little later in this presentation, I will quickly touch on public comments received on the draft environmental review policy since it was posted for review in March, but standardizing conditions and mitigation has been a recurring suggestion from interested parties, including since this draft policy was posted for review.

The standard permit conditions standardize measures commonly applied to projects and build upon prior work developed for ministerial housing projects.

As previously mentioned, some of these conditions will reduce or eliminate entirely the need for technical studies to be prepared for some CEQA resource areas depending on the project type and location.

The common and typical resource areas that the SPCs will address include air quality during construction and operations, archaeological and tribal cultural resource protections, non-SEQA historic resources such as candidate city landmarks, hazardous materials, including soil contamination from previous use of pesticides on sites, construction related noise and vibration, nesting birds and roosting bats, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality.

Each condition includes objective criteria, and some were developed with input from technical experts, including for air quality, biological resources, noise and vibration.

These conditions formalize existing practices and provide clarity on when specific measures may apply.

The applicability of the SPCs is based on project specific factors such as size, site conditions, construction duration, proximity to sensitive receptors like schools or daycares, and if the project would require extended construction hours outside of normal working hours.

This ensures the conditions are applied proportionately and consistently.

To note here, some conditions may not apply to smaller projects, such as projects that qualify for existing facilities exemptions.

Though we are streamlining the environmental review process by including the SPCs in the policy, technical studies will still be needed for some projects.

These instances include for when the screening criteria are exceeded, if unusual site conditions or intense construction or operations are proposed to nearby sensitive receptors, if project characteristics fall outside of the scope of standard permit conditions, if a threshold of significance requires additional study in order to determine whether an impact would occur, or as specifically clarified within the SPC document.

The typical approach to determine whether a technical report may be required for a project would be to check if the project impact meets criteria and then apply standard permit conditions.

If the criteria is exceeded, focused technical analysis would be required, and if the criteria is not met, full technical reports may be required.

Just to bring up two recent examples of projects that were cleared under CECA using Class 32 infill exemptions.

Just to clarify, these projects were already approved.

They did not use the proposed standard permit conditions.

We're just using these projects as an example to demonstrate how this may work.

So the first example here was an infill project.

It's a typical residential infill project.

In this case, the standard construction conditions for air quality and construction noise could be applied, meaning that no technical reports for air quality or noise would be required for this project.

Based on the specific project, technical reports for a tree survey, a phase one environmental site assessment, and a historic report would still be required.

As a second example, this slide provides an example of how the standard permit conditions would apply to a typical commercial infill project.

In this case, it is a Chick fil A restaurant that does not include a drive-through.

This project also used a class 32 infill exemption as its CEQA clearance.

In this case, if the proposed standard permit conditions were applied, similar to the previous example, technical studies would not be required to study air quality impacts or noise impacts.

But tree surveys, a local transportation analysis, and a phase one site assessment would still have been required to clear this project.

As part of the recommendation, but outside of the scope of the standard permit conditions in the handbook, staff is also proposing updates to Title 21 of the municipal code in the environmental clearance section to modernize noticing requirements.

This would include eliminating hard copy distribution of staff reports for environmental appeal hearings.

Noticing would still continue per the city's outreach policy.

This change to reduce the requirement to mail hard copies of environmental appeal staff reports would.

Sorry, I lost myself.

This eliminating hard copy distribution of staff reports would reduce costs and improve efficiency since all materials are already being posted online.

All other noticing requirements in effect now would remain, including sending postcard notices to adjacent properties near the project site.

So in regard to the public review process for this policy item, the draft documents were released for public review in March 2026 and were distributed to known stakeholders, including developers, consultants, and environmental organizations.

Staff has been available to answer questions and meet uh meet with and discuss the handbook or standard permit conditions with anyone that had requested further discussion, and we will still be available up to the city council hearing date for this item.

Since the policy documents were presented in March and have been posted online for public review, staff has received has already received input from a few organizations, including the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, the Sierra Club Loma Prietta chapter, and Green Foothills, as well as several consulting firms and developers.

Comments received so far have been a little scattered since they're from multiple parties, but generally have touched on when the procedures in the handbook and standard permit conditions would need to be complied with, especially for projects that are currently under review.

Clarification or modifications to thresholds of significance for sensitive receptors relating to air quality and artificial lighting.

Biological permit condition language, including for when projects within the urban growth boundary may support wildlife movements, as well as definitions of protected bird species and timing to complete biological surveys.

What types of ground disturbance may trigger protective measures related to ground disturbance, and generally clarifications to more clearly lay out some processes within the handbook and clarifications to thresholds and triggers for when standard permit conditions would apply.

So based on public input, where feasible, we're trying to work on revisions to the handbook and the standard permit conditions.

Staff will prepare revised policy documents prior to the city council hearing on this item in response to the comments and ongoing discussions since posting this policy item.

For comments that do that we receive that do refer to more broad policy changes beyond the scope of this environmental review policy.

Um staff's actively discussing those changes and possible ways to implement those kinds of more broad changes, including through the general plan for year review or through other policy updates.

So just to talk on the timeline of events here.

So the draft policy documents were posted online near the end of March 2026.

Today we are at the Planning Commission, April 22, and this item is scheduled for a city council hearing on May 19th.

Following the hopeful city council approval, the environmental review policy would be effective immediately.

And following that approval, the environmental review streamlining efforts will shift toward standardized templates for common CEQA and NEPA documents, as well as work on the downtown residential ministerial ordinance.

That is the end of the presentation that I have in front of you.

And we do have a recommendation here.

Apologies, my computer died during the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your uh patience.

So staff recommends that the planning commission recommend that the city council take all of the following actions.

Consider the determination of consistency to the environmental impact report for the envisioned San Jose 2040 general plan as supplemented, and to the environmental impact report for the downtown strategy 2040 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA.

Adopt a resolution approving a new city council policy entitled environmental review policy and adopt an ordinance to amend Title 21 for environmental clearance of the San Jose Municipal Code.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next we will go to public comment.

Right now we have one speaker card, Dash Leeds.

Would you please come down?

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Dasha Leeds.

I'm the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Lumber Priata chapter and a D3 resident.

On April 16th, uh the Sierra Club, Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, and Green Foothills, as was mentioned, sent a joint letter to Mr.

Keon and Mr.

Hitchens regarding the proposed draft environmental review handbook and environmental standard permit conditions.

I'm not sure if you've had the opportunity to read our letter, but I'd just like to identify three points from the letter now with my time.

Number one, uh in the handbook, page 224.4D, the proposed threshold of significance regarding wildlife movement uh could improperly imply that wildlife movement impacts are limited to areas outside of the urban growth boundary or a few named locations.

There is well documented evidence that established creeks and creek corridors are critical to wildlife movement in both urban and rural environments.

Furthermore, large portions of Coyote Valley in the Albertin Valley Urban Reserve are important for wildlife movement.

The threshold of significance uh included in this section must be revised so that it does not imply that significant wildlife impacts cannot occur within the city as impacts to wildlife mobility still should be able to be considered significant within the city.

Um, uh the handbook does not require the ecological analysis of the ecological effects of lighting.

So we ask, please require CEQA analysis to evaluate the biological impacts of artificial light at night, particularly for projects near riparian corridors, wetlands, open space, and all projects with substantial nighttime lighting.

For example, sports fields, industrial uses, data centers, and parking lots.

And number three, uh, in the environmental standard permit conditions uh regarding SPC bio-1 impacts to birds and bats.

Uh the condition focuses on direct disturbances, but does not explicitly address does not explicitly address indirect disturbance from construction noise and artificial lighting.

Uh, we recommend clarifying that buffer zones are intended to protect nesting birds from both direct and indirect disturbances, including noise and lighting.

Where work occurs in your active nests, activities within or adjacent to buffers.

Thank you.

Commissioners see, Commissioner Cantrell.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, actually, this seems like a huge amount of work.

Very quickly.

Thank you guys for pulling this together.

Um, I I my primary questions I I think were yours.

Um the repairing corridors happen across the city.

And I'm just can we get clarification on making sure the impact any any changes in the way we view things don't impact those corridors within um the city itself.

Commissioner Contrell, so David Keon from Soul Planet City's environmental review team.

I do want to clarify we actually already have um city council policy 6-34, which is the riparian quarter and bird safe design policy.

That will still apply.

And so projects will still have to be evaluated for conformance with this policy.

And in some cases, they may actually have to do project-specific biological studies and may have even project-specific mitigation depending on where they are.

Um, the purpose of the environmental standard programs was to basically have like these are types of um conditions that apply to pretty much every project, every urban project in the city to standardize that so that then we can focus on these specific impacts that could occur in sensitive areas such as near riparian areas.

Through the chair, if I could add to that, I think just to supplement what David mentioned.

The intent here is to cover 95% of the projects, and there will always be instances where there are unique situations that uh cannot fit in that box that we are trying to create here, and for those there's always flexibility to determine the appropriate thresholds of significance as well as the appropriate conditions of approval of mitigation measures.

Yeah, I I wanted to make sure that that was the fact.

Um primarily because I I we didn't really understand the disposition of the comments at this point, uh, which is important, I think.

Um I know you guys are trying to get this done as soon as possible, and we understand why.

Uh we just want to make sure we're not dropping important balls along the way.

Yeah, and yeah, and also just something that you know for the handbook in terms of the guidance, we are going to be updating the handbook in terms of guidance of threshold, specifically to mention because it's not the intention that when you're preparing environmental documents that you're gonna miss something as important as an environment as wildlife movement, because we often request these studies and making sure that's clear.

Um, I think what the intention of was to try to say that if you know you're within the urban area and outside of a sensitive area that you know, wildlife movement is not something to study, but it is something to study if you are in a sensitive area or outside of the urbanized area.

And I think unfortunately, with looking at the map after we drafted that is that the urban growth boundary actually does include a significant portion of Coyote Valley, and that's not our intent.

Um, projects in Coyote Valley still have to evaluate um impacts to wildlife movement, and that's a very sensitive area.

Um so that's that will be part of the updates that we'll be sending to city council, Vice Chair Bickford.

Thank you for the great presentation.

I think I missed something on the second piece, the amendment to Title 21 related to noticing for appeals of an environmental determination.

Can you help me with was that simply that you weren't sending postcards?

Was that the only change?

So postcards would still be sent per the city's public outreach policy.

It's the only elimination would be hard copy environmental appeal staff reports that are currently required to be mailed out.

Through the chair, they would be available on the website.

Yes, okay.

And through the chair, just want to clarify that that is not a standard practice at all in terms of mailing physical copies of the staff reports because those can be extensive.

Um and there are also time limitations on you know the noticing that has to go out versus when those staff reports are prepared.

So if we felt like this is a uh an impractical requirement and perhaps best done away with at this point.

Yeah, I I wanted to make sure that that we weren't losing some opportunity to communicate with the public, that's all.

And if it's there and available, that's fine.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Actually, it was one of my questions I skipped specifically though.

I think you can you can request it either be sent if you're not if you can't go in to get a copy, is that correct?

Yes, Commissioner Contrell, yeah.

So if somebody wanted to provide have a hard copy of a report, they could request it that we send it to them.

Um what this and so what this is intending to do.

We have in the environmental review section of the municipal code, Title 21, there's standards for appeal, and these mirror similar um procedures for appeals we have for permits.

The one difference is that there is this requirement that you have to actually take the physical copy, make copies of it, and send it to adjacent property owners or tenants and the appellant and applicant.

Um, it's been in there I know probably decades.

Um it's you know, it's a very cumbersome requirement because you know, I mean, we've had environmental appeals that have been next to condo buildings, and then you have to send 300 hard copy letters out, which is something we're definitely not trying to kill more trees.

Um, the idea is that nowadays we have these memos when they're finalized that's going to city council, they're finalized or published on the agenda, then we notify people with a link so they can see it online, and if they did need to see the report physically in person, then we could print it out and send it to them if need be.

I just want I I know there are a number of people who need access to a printed report.

I just want to make sure we're not negating the ability for them to gain access to a printed report.

That's all.

Anything else from the commissioners.

Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Motion and a second.

We will move on to a roll call vote.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynn's not here.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young is not here.

Myself is a yes, making that nine with two absent.

And the motion carries.

Okay.

Agenda item number six referrals from City Council, boards, commissions, or other agencies.

No referrals.

Okay, then on to good and welfare.

Yes, I have a few updates as part of the report from City Council.

So on April 14th, the City Council approved on consent the conditional use permit for and a determination of public convenience and necessity to expand off sale alcohol use at 3140 Williams, which is the grocery outlet.

As we are constantly looking for improvements.

Sure.

Okay, so our general plan for your review outreach process continues.

We kicked it off last Sunday at Viva Cae with stations and an open house.

We got um, I believe almost 600 people going through our booth because we were situated right in the middle, which was perfect.

Um and our next meeting will be tomorrow night at the Southside Community Center at 6 p.m.

if you would like to extend in the invitation to community members.

Um I know we're also doing outreach through individual council offices, and we have posted ads and uh done outreach through social media as well to inform the community about these events.

Um there will also be a special meeting for the city's 2026-2027 proposed mid biannual uh capital budget update um and the 2027-20 to 2031 capital improvement program.

Uh that'll that is being scheduled for May 6th at this point at 5 p.m.

in the wing rooms.

Uh my understanding is that we may only have the one item for the regular agenda for that day.

Uh so we may either cancel the regular meeting or combine it with the special meeting.

So I will we'll keep you posted on how that pans out.

So 5 p.m.

on May 6th.

That is correct.

Okay.

All right.

Anything for the public record?

All right.

See nothing.

This meeting of the planning commission is adjourned.