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 pledge allegiance to the flag. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We'll start with the roll call, vice chair Bickford. Here. Commissioner Barocio here. Commissioner here. Commissioner Cantrell here. Commissioner Cao here. Commissioner Kasey here. Commissioner Escobar here. Commissioner Nguyen, not here yet. Commissioner Olivero here. Commissioner Jung said he would not be able to make it. And I am here. So that is nine. I'm sorry. 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 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 speaker's 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 rezoning, rezoning, 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 21 2400 of the Municipal Code provides the procedures for legal protests to the City Council on Rezonings and rezoning. The Planning Commission's action on conditional use permits is appealable to the City Council. In accordance with section 2102 20 of the Municipal Code agendas and all staff reports for this meeting may be accessed at the city's website. Before I begin, let's see. Commissioner Olivero 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, repeated repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct which will disturb, disrupt or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting. This meeting of the Planning Commission will now come to order. Public comment public comments to 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 on a matter at a subsequent meeting or directing staff to place the item on a future 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 items 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. Speakers? All right. Do we. Have a motion to approve? Second. Second. Okay. We will go to a roll call vote then. Vice Chair Bickford. Yes Commissioner. Barocio. Yes. Commissioner. Bhandal. Yes. Commissioner Cantrell. Yes. Commissioner. Cow. Yes. Commissioner. Kasey. Yes. Commissioner. Escobar. Yes. Commissioner Nguyen 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 as to accommodate a significant public testimony, or we may defer discussion of items to later agendas for public hearing and time management purposes. We'll start with agenda item 5AER 25 259. So staff, do we have a presentation? We do, yes. Good evening chair commissioners. I'm John Wilson. I'm an airport planner with the Department of Aviation. I'm joined by Ryan Scheele 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 Khoi Nguyen supervising planner Tina Garg. With PBCE Mia 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 incorporated into Municode, the 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, Municode 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 airfield safety projects, major landside and terminal projects, 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 we're back here six years later with another amendment to the airport master plan. There are a number of reasons for this. The forecasts, 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 since the pandemic in how people in our region travel, 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 it is this amendment contain 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 to understand where we're really going to be 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. There are some minor updates to taxiway projects. They're 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, we've identified several potential vertiport sites at the airport just to introduce a Vertiports are one component of a new and emerging development in the aviation industry called Advanced Air Mobility, or. Aam. This is essentially a system that's based around a set of electric electrified vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. New technology that's designed to fly short distances within a small set region like the Bay area. We're not proposing building a vertiport. We're not replacing we're not proposing replacing any airport infrastructure. This amendment is a first step that will allow the airport to focus our future planning efforts and determine the feasibility of accommodating this new segment of aviation. Here at SJC. And lastly, 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 22.5 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 and operation is essentially an aircraft takeoff and landing 247,000 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, that includes general aviation operations that increase approximately 36% over our previous forecasts and air taxi operations which is kind of the corporate business 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're going to continue seeing growth. It'd 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, though. So the map here illustrates the modification of capital improvement plan projects. We have projects to narrow several taxiways that have excess concrete, bring 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, there are several vertiport sites overlaid over several areas around the airport. So this amendment has been previously heard by the Airport Commission. That was on February the 9th in 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 are happy to take any questions following the presentation from our partners in PBCE. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and Planning Commissioners. I'm Nina Winwood, PBCE. Thank you. John. The environmental impacts of the project were addressed in an addendum to the San José Mineta 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 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 José Mineta 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 José International Airport. This concludes staff presentation. At this time, we'll do public comment. Each speaker will have two minutes. So we have two comments here. Jim Stahlman and Betsy Meghas. Please come forward. To the podium in the middle. Hi, Jim Stahlman live in Saratoga. I asked that the Planning Commission here. Please see that the bicycle pedestrian access to the airport is part of the master plan, even if it's not, if it doesn't change the motion tonight it could be a comment sent along to the city council. I don't know who's That access point was put in at the request in the effort of Amos Rindler three, three decades ago. Amos was an airport worker. The airport is large employer. Used by employees and as a bicycle routes in the county. The closure would require crossing freeways 2 or 3 times and several miles of detour. Oakland has a class one access. San Francisco has class two and San José Airport. I don't know if you want to be third on the pecking order, but you could ensure that we don't lose this access and and make it even worse than it already is. Thank you. Good evening, Betsy Meghas. I'm a member of the I'm a resident of the city of Santa Clara, a member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees for both the City of Santa Clara and VTA. Speaking tonight for myself, only the airport Master plan includes the usage of Ewert Road for bicycle connection for public public use and. This amendment does not change that. Despite this, the community has seen by way of posted sign on the entrance to Ewert 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 that's actually an appropriate thing to do. We're calling on the on the commission and the City Council to affirm that Ewert Road should continue to be open to public bicycle use and to advise and direct San José airport staff, not to close the route. This route. As Mr. Suleman indicated, is an important connection. Be on the 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 are very, very limited and their high speed traffic. There's a freeway connection. It's it's extremely uncomfortable. So I ask that you I think you've probably gotten some mail on this topic already. I ask that you take a good look at that and, and question whether whether this is something that is within the. Question where this decision has come from and whether it is an appropriate thing to do. Thank you. Mr. Stallman, and Miss Magus, thank you both for coming tonight. I very much appreciate your concerns. I've been the airport myself, so the. Your road and the bicycle path is actually not part of the airport plan. And city attorney, would you be able to explain it so that way, not only then, 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 complex. It's a little complicated. Thank you for the question, chair. Yes, the comments related to your road, you were road closures not contemplated as part of the airport master plan. That is before this Planning commission tonight. It is not something that has been agendized or noticed. And so it is not something that the Planning Commission may act on tonight due to the Brown Act regulations that govern this body. I will also say, just having briefly looked at the public comments, that the closure of Ewert 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 April 14th. So last Tuesday, and was approved as part of the consent calendar. I do believe that there were similar public comments that were submitted as part of that item that went before City Council. And so 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 opportunity to speak and to ultimately have council make a decision, unfortunately, while this commission can hear the planning, the comments on your road, this. This commission is not permitted tonight to make a decision on the closure or not of your road. So your road is not included. In what we're talking about tonight. It was included in a previous item, which was that city Council last week. Yes. And then if they wanted to discuss potential things as the city could do to us, you know, to help folks who want to ride their bicycles without having to cross freeways, what would their best course of action be? I think that there are opportunities. I can't provide legal advice, but 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. It does look like there have been a lot of public comment that was submitted to the council before the item. I would I would continue to pursue those avenues. Unfortunately, it's not something that this Planning Commission could decide. So I certainly think contacting. What is it bicycles, Silicon Valley Bicycle Club or, you know, go ahead. Through the chair, Manira Sandhir Deputy Director of Planning. I think the Department of Transportation may also be a good resource. If you have questions about the bike plan. Yes, the Department of Transportation, they are the lead department on the 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, folks you can contact. Okay. All right. Do we have any 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. Thank you. Staff, given how significantly the passenger forecasts have changed since 2020, what assumptions in the new 2037 forecast are you least confident in, and how is the airport planning for that risk? I did make a start. I can make a start, at least that what goes into the forecast? I can go ahead and take that one. Patrick Hanson, acting deputy director with Planning development at the airport. So the question was, given the substantial changes in the original forecasts based a few years back and the recent reduction revised forecasts, which are reducing the numbers by a few million per year. The question is, what is the least part of that, that we're confident in it? To be honest, we don't know what we don't know. Obviously, nobody knew Covid was going to happen, and those 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 future projects through 2037. That doesn't mean that we would actually pursue building all of those projects, unless the fiscal kind of scenario supports us to move forward with building certain capital development projects. So we would, on the side of caution and make sure that we're in a good place and fiscally responsible before pursuing any of those projects in the airport capital master plans. So although it allows us to pursue those projects, we will definitely be conservative in our approach financially to make sure that we have the numbers as far as passenger traffic that support those future development projects. Thanks. Let me state the question again. Given how significantly passenger forecasts have changed since 2020, what assumptions, what assumptions in the new 2037 forecast are you least confident. In. And how is the airport planning for that risk? So is the question. With inputs into the forecast itself right? We perform the assumptions. In the forecasts. 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. I believe that the one that we're least confident is really the passenger volume. There has been many changes in the aviation industry since Covid and the Bay area specifically. San José International Airport 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 are least confident. Got it. Overall aggregate pathogen volume correct. Yes. And so this demand capacity what technology is the airport using to to understand the forecast. Is this an Excel spreadsheet? No. We actually hire vendors consultants. Yes. And they have the expertise and the tools to conduct such evaluation. And they share with you the actual source data and the tabulations and what the assumptions are. And if I change, you know, 500,000 passengers versus 750,000 passengers, then you see a different results. That is correct. Got it. And is that a public record? Yes it is. Just to add to that, the the the full report by our consultant is included as an appendix in the addendum to the Environmental Impact report. 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 or revenues underperform? Do you have like a 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 delay. Obviously, the passenger numbers have to be there for us to go forward. With a large project like that. And then also the the short term parking garage expansion in lot four would also be put on hold. Those are two of the largest projects that would be put on hold until the actual numbers in passenger traffic are there to support the future expansion. Thank you for that. And then my last one, these 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 very diligent about applying the numbers and putting everything through the model. But currently, we do have an agreement with the air carriers that serve. I would say, the largest, the signatory carriers that serve SGC, and they are guarantors. 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 one last question would be, 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 the face of these types of numbers? We are a facility to serve the airlines, and even though we cannot generate passenger volume, we do have a member in our staff that is our air service development person, and he is in constant contact with the airlines, what are the routes that would benefit our citizens and our community. 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 because if this were my business, I would be concerned. 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. Maybe in the future, maybe. Planning activities extend over time with partners. Are you guys looking at any opportunities like that? It concerns me to see this as a citizen here. This type of potential decline is pretty significant. So I'd love to know that you guys are working on ways to try to make San José 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 by federal regulation to do certain incentives to secure service. But unfortunately, if the passengers are not there, the airlines are hesitant right to try at this moment. Thank you. Thank you. And next we'll hear from commissioner and then Vice Chair. Bickford thank you, chair, and thank you guys for your presentation and your preparation, all for being here tonight. You know, two of the highest recorded years were 2018 and 2019. 2018 had passenger demand of 14.3 million and 2019 had 15.7. That's the highest in the I mean, the whole graph. Why do you guys think that that was the highest at that time? Was there something that we were doing special at that time, or was it just all airports were busy or just curious on your thoughts? Thank you. For a time, SJC was the fastest growing airport in the nation. We'd love to return to that. It was a confluence of factors, including, 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 competition between several of our mainline carriers. And then there was the fact that we had secured several international routes at the time, and that was feeding some of that domestic traffic. So we had kind of this perfect, you know, set of events that allowed for that growth that we just don't see right now. Unfortunately, we're seeing a lot of this in the region right at Oakland is having the same seeing the same effects we are. Do you. Think do you think working work from home is affecting these numbers? Yeah 100%. The lack of business travel. 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 has returned to their levels, but Oakland and SJC, we have not reached our pre-pandemic numbers. As you can tell, we're at about 10.6 million from almost 16 million. So we do expect that to impact us in the long term, right? With with teams, with Zoom, it's fundamentally changed how everyone travels. And then I believe you mentioned international travel back in 2018 2019. I'm kind of familiar with just being a passenger. I know there was a lot more airlines coming and a lot more options. That way. You can skip going to SFO or Oakland and catch something. Long haul flight from SFO. Are you guys working on anything like that? Is there, is there any any anything that could 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 Commissioner Cantrell was saying? Just, 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 what is it that we can do or what's going on. Yeah. We. Sure. Hold those conversations. We still have Air Canada and British Airways in our books. However, there's a lot going on in the industry in aviation, like shortage of aircraft that it's really weighing on their decision. And I believe that currently there's a lot of uncertainty and increased inflation and everything that it's affecting the decision making of the passengers. We also believe that once the region sees an increase in passenger volume, that San Francisco International 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 something that of course, we're looking forward to. But at this moment, we cannot tell how soon Yeah, I noticed on the the diagrams, there were a potential for for spaces on the airport property for Vtol, vertical takeoff and landing. Is it the plan to evaluate those and decide on 1 or 2? Are you waiting for the demand to come in to make a decision? How is that? How is that going to go? Right. So, so this industry is seeing a huge amount of investment and a huge amount of interest. We have, you know, several or at least one of the the aircraft manufacturers is based right here in San José Archer. And so what we want to do is be ahead of the curve and assess these sites for feasibility with from an aviation perspective, right. If there are 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, the airport is ready as well. Commissioner Cantrell. Actually really glad to hear some forward thinking there. I was just looking earlier. I didn't want to say this, but I'll say it now. It feels like you might enter a demand death loop. If there's not any increase in demand here. I mean, prices are going to go nuts. It just really kind of concerns me that, you know, we got to figure this out. This, this is kind of wow. I mean, 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 I was noticing that, you know, that might be a commute I would have to take because I couldn't find the flights at the prices I was willing to pay. So big problem. 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 roll call vote, I would like to say that I'm glad to see the city of San José taking the lead as the capital of Silicon Valley and providing vertiports. I was often concerned about where these vertical 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. Motion to approve. Bickford. Second. Second. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Or item five, a Vice chair. Bickford. Yes Commissioner. Barocio. Yes Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Cantrell. Yes. Commissioner. Kent. Yes. Commissioner. Kasey. Yes. Commissioner. Escobar. Yes. Commissioner Nguyen, not with us. Commissioner Olivero. Yes, Commissioner young is not with us. And I too, am a. Yes, that is nine zero. And the motion carries. All right. Okay. Staff, move out. All right. On to agenda item five B, the Environmental review Handbook. Staff, do we have a presentation? Yes, we do. Thank you. Good evening. Chair and Commissioners. My name is Kurt Hitchens and I am 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 specs. We also summarized 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 José, 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 upfront. 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 José, 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 the CEQA resource areas. Scope of work requirements and guidance for preparing both CEQA and Nikpa. CEQA and Nepa documentation in this presentation, we will discuss section four to elaborate on the proposed thresholds of significance and to briefly discuss section six and seven of the Handbook. These sections provide city specific guidance for preparing environmental documents under CEQA, Nepa and clarify expectations for each document type. In addition to guidance provided within the SCL 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 CEQA and Nepa guidelines. Information specific to projects in San José. So to touch on section four of the handbook, thresholds of significance. Section four 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 four 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 CEQA 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 José 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 specs are intended to streamline the environmental review process by addressing common impacts associated with typical urban development projects. Adoption of the specs 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. Archeological and tribal cultural resource protections. Non CEQA 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 and 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. 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. Focus 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 CEQA using class 32 infill exemptions. I just want to demonstrate how standard permit, the proposed standard permit conditions could be applied to typical projects, and when technical reports may still be required in some cases. 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. 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 this standard, permit conditions and 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, were. Sorry I lost myself. This. 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, 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 Prieta 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 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, staff is 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 22nd, 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 for your patience. So staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council take all the following actions. Consider the. The determination of consistency to the Environmental Impact report for the. Envision San José 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 José Municipal Code. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, we will go to public comment. Right now we have one speaker card Dash leads to please come down. Hello commissioners. My name is Daniel Leeds. I'm the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta chapter and AD3 resident. On April 16th, the Sierra Club, Santa Clara Valley Alliance and Green Foothills, as was mentioned, sent a joint letter to Mr. Cohen 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, my time number one in the Handbook, page 22. 4.4 D the proposed threshold of significance regarding wildlife movement 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 Almaden Valley Urban Reserve are important for wildlife movement. The threshold of significance 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. Number two, 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 in the environmental standard permit conditions regarding SPC bio dash one impacts to birds and bats. The condition focuses on direct disturbances but does not explicitly address, does not explicitly address indirect disturbance from construction noise and artificial lighting. 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 near active nests. Activities within or adjacent to buffer. Thank you. Commissioner. See Commissioner Cantrell. Thank you. Chair. Actually, this seems like a huge amount of work very quickly. Thank you guys for pulling this together. I my primary questions I think were yours. The riparian corridors happen across the city, and I'm just. Can we get clarification on making sure the impact. Yeah. Any any changes in the way we view things don't impact those corridors within the city itself. Commissioner Cantrell. So David, can principal planner the city's environmental review team. I do want to clarify. We actually already have City Council policy six dash 34, which is the riparian corridor 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. The purpose of the environmental standard conditions was to basically have. These are types of 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 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 or mitigation measures. Yeah, I wanted to make sure that that was the fact, primarily because I we didn't really understand the disposition of the comments at this point, which is important, I think. I know you guys are trying to get this done as soon as possible, and we understand why. 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 and thresholds specifically to mention, because it's not the intention that when you're preparing environmental documents that you're going to miss something as important as an environment, as wildlife movement, because we often request these studies and making sure that's clear, 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 move 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. Projects in Coyote Valley still have to evaluate impacts to wildlife movement, and that's a very sensitive area. 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 Appeals staff reports that are currently required to be mailed out. and they would be available on the website. Yes. Okay. And through the chair, I 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. And they're also time limitations on, you know, the noticing that has to go out versus when those staff reports are prepared. So we felt like this is a an impractical requirement and perhaps best done away with at this point. Yeah, I wanted to make sure 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 Cantrell. Yeah. So if somebody wanted to provide have a hard copy of a report, they could request it that we send it to them. What this. 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 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. It's been in there. I don't probably decades. It's, you know, it's a very cumbersome requirement because, you know, I mean, we've had environmental appeals 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 do. more trees. But, you know, the idea is that nowadays we have these memos with our finalized it's going to city council. Their findings are 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, 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. Barocio. Yes, Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Cantrell. Yes. Commissioner. Cao. Yes. Commissioner. Kasey. Yes. Commissioner. Escobar. Yes. Commissioner Nguyen. Not here. Commissioner Oliverio. Yes. Commissioner young is not here myself is. 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 a determination of public convenience and necessity to expand off sale alcohol use at 3140. commission as a consent item as well. Just this Monday, the City Council held a study session or on our development services process and our permitting continuum was very extensive. We had all our core development services partners, including fire, public works, building and planning, present to walk the council through that process. We also had customer voices to share their experiences, both the good and the bad, as we all constantly looking for improvements. But if the Planning Commission has any interest, it's available online and certainly we are available. If you have any questions. And finally, next week, on April 28th, the Council will be considering the Builder's Remedy Project. The Camden project that had come before the Commission because of the significant and unavoidable over and overriding considerations associated with the vehicle miles traveled and GHG impacts for this project. So yeah, that's going next week. I can keep going on commission, calendar and study sessions. Sure. Okay. So our General Plan for your review outreach process continues. We kicked it off last Sunday at Viva Chi with stations and an open house. We got, I believe, almost 600 people going through our our booths because we were situated right in the middle, which was perfect. And our next meeting will be tomorrow night at the South Side Community Center at 6 p.m. If you would like to extend the invitation to community members. I know we're also doing outreach through individual council offices, and we have posted ads in done outreach through social media as well to inform the community about these events. There will also be a special meeting for the city's 2026 Dash 2027, proposed mid bi annual capital budget update and the 2027 20 to 2031 Capital Improvement program that is being scheduled for May 6th at this point, at 5 p.m. in the wing rooms, my understanding is that we may only have the one item for the regular