►
From YouTube: MAR 11, 2020 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission Meeting.
Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=769288&GUID=5D2CAAB4-D176-407D-BD66-53E3288FB7E4
A
A
A
B
Welcome
to
a
meeting
of
the
San
Jose
Planning
Commission,
the
following
is
a
summary
of
the
Planning
Commission's
hearing
procedures.
If
you
want
to
address
the
Commission,
please
fill
out
a
speaker
card
located
on
the
table
near
the
audio-visual
technician
and
deposit
the
completed
card
in
the
basket.
There
are
also
speaker
cards
in
the
back
of
the
chambers
and
at
the
side
entrance.
The
procedure
for
this
hearing
is
as
follows.
After
the
staff
report,
applicants
and
appellant
may
make
a
five-minute
presentation.
B
The
chair
will
call
out
names
on
the
submitted
speaker
cards
in
the
order
received,
as
your
name
is
called.
Please
line
up
in
front
of
the
microphone
at
the
front
of
the
chamber.
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
Speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
four
minutes
after
the
public
testimony
the
applicant
and
appellate
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
speakers
time
allowance.
B
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
the
public.
Testimony.
Ask
staff
questions
and
discuss
the
item.
If
you
challenge
these
land-use
decisions
in
court,
you
may
be
limited
to
raising
only
those
issues
you
or
someone
else
raised.
If
this
public
hearing
or
in
written
correspondence
delivered
to
the
city
at
or
prior
to
the
public
hearing,
the
Planning
Commission's
action
on
rezoning,
x',
pries,
owning
x'
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
City
Council.
B
The
City
Council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
Section
20
point
120
point:
400
of
the
Municipal
Code
provides
the
procedures
for
legal
protests
of
the
City
Council
on
reasonings
and
pries
awnings.
The
Planning
Commission's
action
on
conditional
use
permits
is
appealable
to
the
City
Council
in
accordance
with
section
20
point
100
point
220
of
the
Municipal
Code
agendas
and
a
binder
of
all
staff
reports
have
been
placed
on
the
table
near
the
door
for
your
convenience.
Thank
you.
A
So
before
we
begin
this
evening,
this
evenings
meeting,
we
want
to
remind
you
about
the
city's
response
to
the
latest
guidance
from
the
County
of
Santa
Clara
Public
Health
Department,
to
slow
the
spread
of
the
novel
coronavirus
cove
in
nineteen
and
to
reduce
the
number
of
people
infected.
The
city
is
at
a
stage
for
high
response
level
of
its
pandemic
response
plan.
This
means
that
there
is
a
high
risk
to
the
local
population,
while
the
city
city's
development
services
are
continuing,
regular
operations.
A
This
evening
we
ask
you
to
avoid
handshakes,
sit
at
least
at
an
arm's
length,
remember
to
sneeze
or
cough
into
a
tissue
or
your
sleeve
and
discard
the
tissue.
There
are
tissues
here
hand
sanitizer
is
also
available
at
the
front
and
remember
not
to
touch
your
face
and
please
use
a
tissue
when
touching
door
handles
and
discard
the
tissue.
Thank
you.
A
A
D
D
D
The
proposed
updates
to
chapter
20
point
3-0
would
clarify
the
maximum
gross
square
footage
for
accessory
dwelling
units
and
clarify
parking
requirements
for
junior
accessory
dwelling
units
and
for
units
within
to
family
and
multi-family,
and
it
makes
other
formatting
changes
within
those
sections.
An
additional
reference
is
to
eliminate
the
minimum
rear
setback
of
5
feet
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
D
The
proposed
updates
to
chapter
twenty
point:
nine
zero
would
modify
table
20,
one
line,
zero
to
clarify
parking
requirements
for
commercial
indoor
recreation
to
allow
flexibility
for
use
type,
and
these
are
for
users
that
require
reservation.
Appointments
or
classes
with
limited
attendance
would
have
a
lowered
parking
ratio,
and
this
update
also
includes
minor
text
alterations
to
table
20
to
1-0
to
rectify
labeling
errors
for
parking
facility.
D
A
E
A
E
E
Good
evening
Planning
Commission,
my
name
is
Carrie
Greene
I'm.
One-Half
of
the
airport's
planning
staff
with
me
this
evening
is
Ryan
shilling,
the
other
half
of
the
airport
planning
staff
and
we're
also
joined
by
the
city's
director
of
aviation
Judy
Ross
and
the
Deputy
Director
of
the
airport.
True
Needham,
on
Niemeyer,
almost.
E
The
less
time
we
appeared
before
you
or
should
say,
last
time
we
appeared
before
the
Planning
Commission
on
what
we
call
a
major
amendment
to
the
airport
master
plan
was
in
2010,
so
we
don't
do
these
very
often
and
so
forth.
Some
of
the
planning
commissioners.
This
may
be
your
one
and
only
opportunity
to
talk
about
an
airport
development
program,
so
I'll
get
started.
We
have
about
15
minute
presentation
and,
starting
with
you
know,
what
is
the
airport
master
plan?
Well,
the
airport
master
plan
is
simply
a
long-range
guide
to
Airport
facility
development.
E
It's
kind
of
analogous
to
the
city
general
plan.
You
know,
which
is
a
long-range
guide
for
the
city
and,
and
you
have,
projections
of
population
and
employment
and
distribution
of
land
uses
to
serve
that
population
and
employment,
and
the
up
masterplan
is
kind
of
the
same
thing.
We
have
projections
of
passengers
and
aircraft
operations
and
a
program
of
facilities
development
to
adequately
serve
that
demand.
The
last
comprehensive
updates
to
the
master
plan
that
we
did
was
in
the
1990s.
It
took
a
number
of
years.
E
It
was
controversial
at
the
time
and
although
there's
no
federal
state
requirement
that
airports
do
master
plans,
most
airports
do
have
master
plans.
It's
a
it's
a
good
thing
to
do,
and
the
City
Council
in
1998,
right
after
we
completed
that
long,
comprehensive
updates
and
a
master
plan
passed
an
ordinance.
A
one
of
the
provisions
were
that
was
that
all
capital
improvements
at
the
airport
must
be
consistent
with
the
adopted
master
plan
that
pretty
much
means
we
will
always
have
a
master
plan
and
it's
important
that
we
keep
it
updated
next
slide,
please.
E
So
why
are
we
here
tonight?
There
is
also
an
admissible
code
in
ordinance
that
the
council
passed
in
the
early
1990s.
While
we
were
doing
that
comprehensive
update
to
the
master
plan
which
sets
forth
requirements
for
preparing
the
master
plan
and
for
keeping
the
master
plan
up-to-date
through
well.
What
are
called
amendments
both
major
and
minor
major
amendments,
as
defined
in
the
code
of
those
proposed
changes
to
the
master
plan
which
either
modify
the
goals
objectives
of
the
plan,
increase,
design
capacity
of
the
airport
beyond.
E
E
The
code
also
defines
minor
amendments
is
just
about
any
and
he
changed
the
de
master
plan
that
doesn't
trigger
a
major
amendment,
and
so
mine
amendments
are
usually
more
project,
specific
we're,
adding
a
project
to
the
master
plan.
That's
that's
not
in
the
current
master
plan
or
where
we're
changing
the
size
of
the
location
of
a
facility
proposing
the
master
plan
and
we've
done
13
minor
amendments
to
the
master
plan.
E
The
last
one
was
in
2018,
so
under
the
city,
Municipal
Code,
whenever
we
propose
a
major
amendment,
it's
stipulated
that
it
comes
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
advisory
review,
since
you'll
be
reviewing
any
or
all
tonight
anyway,
you,
you
would
be
reviewing
this
and-
and
it
also
goes
to
Airport
Commission
for
review,
which
is
a
step
we've
already
completed
next
slide.
Okay,
so
just
a
quick
orientation.
This
is
an
aerial
photo
of
the
airport.
E
North
is
to
the
right
south
is
to
the
left,
and
the
airport
is
about
4,000
acres
and
you
can
see
most
of
it
is
actually
taken
up
by
the
airfield.
We
have
two
runways.
Those
are
the
two
long
and
and
wide
strips
of
pavement
on
the
aerial
photo.
The
runway
that's
closest
to
the
terminal
area
down
at
the
bottom
of
the
photo.
That's
mainly
used
for
departures
and
the
runway.
That's
kind
of
in
the
middle
of
the
field.
E
That's
primarily
used
for
arrivals,
also
on
the
west
side
of
field
near
the
top
of
the
photograph,
is
a
former
short
runway
that
was
previously
used
by
general
aviation
aircraft.
Essentially,
the
small
propeller
driven
aircraft
and
that
short
runway
was
shut
down
in
2009
on
a
interim
basis,
and
one
of
the
elements
of
the
amendments
that
we're
proposing
tonight
would
would
provide
an
ultimate
disposition
of
that
form.
A
runway.
E
So
what
we're
proposing
in
the
major
amendments
is
basically
three
three
elements.
One
is
to
update
the
plan
a
rising
year
from
twenty
to
twenty
seven
to
twenty
thirty,
seven,
along
with
updating
the
demand
projections
for
the
year,
twenty
thirty
seven
and
that's
really
the
trigger
for
the
major
amendment.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
big
change
from
the
existing
master
plan.
E
The
FAA
actually
came
to
to
San
Jose
to
offer
us
the
grant
funds
to
do
the
study,
because
there
is
a
history
at
San
Jose
of
runway
incursions,
and
so
we
did
the
study
that
looked
at
how
to
address
those
issues,
and
we've
come
up
with
a
number
of
changes
to
the
airfield
mainly
to
the
taxiway
system,
that
there
are
changes
that
aren't
in
the
master
plan
today.
So
that
requires
us
to
amend
the
master
plan
to
add
in
those
improvements
and
also
with
going
out
to
the
year
2037
with
new
demand
projections.
E
We
also
want
to
modify
a
number
of
land
site
improvements
so
so
that
they
are
designed
to
adequately
accommodate
the
projected
demand.
So
these
the
terminal
buildings
would
be
a
little
bit
larger
than
currently
in
the
master
plan.
We're
also
changing
the
sizing
of
the
parking
garages,
the
cargo
areas,
the
general
aviation
developments
and
the
support
facilities
and
most
and
some
of
that
some
of
those
facilities
are
smaller
than
what's
currently
in
and
master
plan,
and
some
like
the
terminal
a
little
bit
larger
and
the
footnote
at
the
at
the
bottom.
It's
just
a.
E
Just
to
advise
that
the
city
municipal
code
currently
constrains
the
airport
to
a
total
of
forty
gates
and
based
on
our
update
demand,
we
feel
we
need
42
gates,
so
as
part
of
the
actions
that
go
to
council
would
be
an
amendment
to
the
muni
code
to
allow
us
to
have
42
gates.
Also
in
terms
of
land
side,
facilities
were
proposing
to
add
a
hotel
with
which
is
essentially
a
non-aviation
use,
and
that's
really
the
only
new
project
we're
proposing
to
add
to
the
land
side
facilities
next
slide.
E
E
The
master
plan
today
calls
for
expanding
the
terminals
out
to
40
gates
of
building
parking
garages,
expanding
the
cargo
operating
areas
and
and
relocating
and
expanding
support
facilities,
and
really
that's
that's-
that's
still
what
we're
planning
to
do
and
just
in
a
slightly
different
manner,
we're
not
adding
new
runways
when
I
extended
runways,
we're
not
relocating
runways,
so
the
the
major
parts
of
the
of
the
airport
remain
in
place
and
don't
change
with
this
master
plan.
Amendment.
E
Another
point
point
is
that
these
changes
to
the
master
plan
or
not
capacity,
enhancing
it's
a
concept
that
some
people
in
the
public
have
have
a
problem.
Rasping
and
but
the
history
of
airports
in
this
country
over
the
last
few
decades,
and
certainly
at
San
Jose,
is
that
facility
constraints
do
not
constrain
demand.
The
demand
will
occur
whether
or
not
the
facilities
are
improved.
E
That's
what's
going
to
happen,
and
and
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
the
master
plan.
With
the
land
side,
facilities
is
to
provide
an
adequate
level
of
customer
service.
So
that's
we
don't
have
overcrowded
hold
rooms
and
long
security
lines
and
and
inadequate
parking
lots.
So
if
so,
it's
important
to
point
out
that,
even
if
we
did
into
anything,
we
still
expected
the
demand
that
we
project
for
the
year
2037
to
occur
here
at
San
Jose.
E
Lastly,
we
want
to
point
out
because
you'll
note
from
the
e
IR
that
a
lot
of
the
public
comments
we
got
were
from
residents
of
the
northern
part
of
the
county,
who
are
very
concerned
about
aircraft
over
flights
and
a
couple
years
ago
the
FAA
redesigned
the
flight
paths
in
the
Bay
Area,
as
they've
done
in
other
parts
of
the
country
and
they've
tightened
up
the
flight
tracks.
So
what
happens
is
those
people
would
happen
to
live
under
those
tightened
flight
tracks?
E
Here
are
a
lot
more
noise
and
when
San
Jose
has
arrivals
from
the
north,
which
is
13%
at
a
time.
These
residents
will
hear
it
and
and
so
concerned
about
it.
But
the
point
to
point
out
that
the
this,
the
airport
and
the
city
have
no
control
over
the
flight
tracks.
That's
purely
within
the
FAA
s,
purview
and
and
nothing
we
do
in
this
proposed
amendments
and
master
plan
is
going
to
change
that.
G
Good
evening,
and
so
moving
along
to
the
airfield
projects,
just
to
briefly
give
a
little
bit
more
detail,
especially
on
the
rim
study.
So
as
Kerry
mentioned,
it
stands
for
runway
incursion,
and
so
a
runway
occur
incursion
just
for
everyone's
knowledge.
So
we
know
why
we're
doing
these
improvements
is
when
essentially
when
an
unauthorized
aircraft-
or
it
could
be
a
vehicle
or
a
person,
is
on
the
runway
when
they
didn't
have
permissions
so
that
permission
would
come
from
the
FAA
air
traffic
control
tower
on
the
airfield
and
so.
G
G
We
did
look
at
the
history
of
all
runway
incursions
for
the
past
20
years
at
the
airport,
and
we
did
an
extensive
analysis
with
our
consultant
team
to
come
up
with
with
a
recommendation
of
safety
improvements,
and
that's
what
you
see
up
here,
which
which
I'll
briefly
go
through
so
you'll,
see
the
legend
down
in
the
bottom
left
hand
corner
to
designate
what
we're
talking
about
here.
So
the
primary
first
and
foremost,
is
the
closure
of
that
third
runway
that
general
aviation
runway.
G
For
again
for
those
general
aviation
and
corporate
aviation
that
we
have
at
SJC
on
the
other
side
of
the
airfield
is
all
of
our
commercial
airline
traffic,
and
so
next,
one
of
the
big
recommendations
that
came
out
of
the
study
was
to
shift
taxiways
so
that
aircraft
can't
go
directly
from
the
ramp
out
onto
the
runway,
so
that
can
lead
to
a
runway
incursion.
Instead,
the
fa
criteria
asks
that
aircraft
have
to
make
a
turn
before
they
get
out
to
the
runway.
G
So
that's
why
up
here
in
this
picture
on
the
bottom
half
you'll
see
the
red
is
is
denote,
mean
pavement
removal,
that's
where
the
existing
taxiways
are,
and
the
gray
is
where
all
these
new
taxiways
will
be
shifted
to.
So
all
of
all
of
the
air
traffic
on
the
east
side
of
the
field,
predominantly
the
airlines
will
have
to
make
that
turn
before
getting
out
to
the
runway.
As
you
can
see,
similar
is
being
done
on
the
west
side,
with
the
new
taxi
way
system,
so
aircraft
can't
go
directly
out
into
the
runway.
G
Additionally,
you'll
see
the
you'll
see
the
green
pavement
in
between
the
runways,
so
those
two
taxiways
will
be
closed,
and
and
so
why
are
they
paid
to
green
right?
The
the
FA?
That's
the
criteria,
it's
it's
essentially
the
same
as
putting
in
grass,
but
we
don't
want
to
put
in
new
grass
for
lots
of
reasons,
including
wildlife,
and
so
in
this
case
these
two
taxiways
directly
enter
into
both
of
the
runways
and
they
ant.
They
enter
into
that
center.
G
Third
of
the
runway,
where
the
aircraft
are
traveling
the
fastest
when
they're,
arriving
or
departing
on
your
flight,
and
so
essentially
we're
going
to
close
those
there's
no
need
to
have
that
added
risk
for
runway
incursions
and
aircraft
can
cross
at
other
points
on
the
airfield.
The
last
off.
The
big
recommendation
that
came
out
of
the
study
you'll
see
on
the
on
the
far
left
and
far
right
and
green
as
well,
the
north,
north
and
south,
and
so
that
pavement
will
also
be
will
put
green
paint
down
and
close
that
pavement.
G
Those
those
taxiways
are
are
not
do
not
meet
FA
criteria
for
the
width
or
they're
larger,
so
they
do
meet
FAA
criteria
but
they're
larger
than
they
have
to
be,
and
that
can
that
can
lead
to
pilots
getting
confused
and
disoriented,
especially
at
night
and
again
that
leads
to
runway
incursions.
So
that
is
another
step
that
we
will.
G
That
we'll
do
is
address
as
part
of
these
the
airfield
projects
and
the
master
plan
amendment
okay,
moving
along
to
to
the
land
side
projects,
part
of
this
master
plan
amendment,
and
so
obviously
with
the
main
one
being
the
terminal.
C
or
phase
2
extension,
and
so
that
would
be
a
42
gate
facility
up
from
forty
approved
in
our
current
master
plan.
G
It's
so
along
with,
along
with
the
terminal
expansion.
Again,
we
need
to
accommodate
the
parking
in
that
we're
gonna
lose
that
will
be
displaced
and
in
that
existing
area.
So
we
have
long
term
and
short
term
parking
garages
and
so
on.
The
far
left,
you'll
see,
what's
known
as
the
economy,
lock,
raj
or
the
long
term
garage,
and
then
you'll
see
the
short
term
garage
which
will
be
built
directly
across
from
the
terminal
and
those
will
both
be
as
Kerry
mentioned.
G
Those
will
both
be
reduced
in
size
from
what
we
have
in
the
existing
master
plan.
So
so,
essentially,
there's
going
to
be
less
spaces
and
those
only
only
what's
predicted
to
me
needed,
and
so
the
new
project,
as
part
of
this
master
plan
again,
is
the
airport
hotel
directly
across
from
that
terminal
expansion
to
serve
our
our
traveling
passengers
and
business
passengers
and
last
of
all
for
the
the
major
projects.
Out
of
this
is
a
future
belly.
G
E
Okay,
just
to
finish
up
a
presentation
on
the
public.
Reviewing
of
an
approval
process
separate
from
the
EIA
are
that
that
David
will
go
through.
We've
done
a
number
of
progress
reports
and
to
the
City
Council,
the
Transportation
Environment
Committee,
the
Airport
Commission
and
the
county
al.
You
see
the
the
county
al
you
see
to
take
action
on
the
proposed
master
plan.
Amendments
in
January.
E
Their
action
is
not
to
approve
or
not
approve
the
amendment
that
their
action
is
actually
whether
to
accept
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
masa
plan
as
a
basis
for
updating
their
comprehensive
Land
Use
Plan
for
the
airport,
because
their
charge
on
the
state
law
is
to
develop
a
comprehensive
lanius
plan
based
on
the
airport
master
plan.
So
they
did
approve
the
acceptance
of
the
masa
plan
amendment
for
their
for
their
use.
The
Airport
Commission
had
a
meeting
just
about
a
month
ago.
E
H
So
the
reason
why
this
project
is
before
the
Planning
Commission
is
because
under
12
title
21
of
the
missable
code,
any
projects
with
an
environmental
impact
report,
a
IR
that
have
a
statement
of
overriding
consideration
because
they'd
have
an
identified.
Significant
unavoidable
impact
must
be
I,
go
through
the
Planning
Commission,
with
which
we'll
make
a
recommendation
to
City
Council.
So
this
project
has
a
significant
unavoidable
impact
and
therefore
it
is
before
you
tonight,
as
part
of
you
know,
to
seek
your
input
and
recommendation
to
the
City
Council.
H
So
just
some
background
on
the
environmental
impact
report,
notice
of
preparation
was
issued
back
in
December
2018.
The
drafty
air
was
circulated
for
public
review
between
November
27th
and
January
17th
to
2020.
There
was
a
slight
extension
I'm
at
the
request
of
one
of
the
reviewing
agencies.
This
particular
and
environmental
impact
report
identified
two
significant
audible
impacts.
One
is
to
air
quality
during
construction
and
operation
and
cumulative
it
air
quality
impacts.
Most
of
this
was
due
to
the
operate
the
aircraft
operations,
which
is
beyond
the
airport's
control.
H
In
addition,
the
same
thing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
were
found
to
be
significant
unavoidable
because
of
mostly
due
to
aircraft
operations.
In
addition,
there
were
significant
impacts
of
mitigation
identified
to
biological
resources.
This
include
Konkan,
star,
plant,
burrowing,
owls,
bats,
migratory
birds
and
riparian
habitats,
archaeological
resources
and
hazards
and
hazardous
materials
so,
and
the
City
Council
will
have
to
adopt
a
statement
of
overriding
considerations
if
they
wish
to
adopt
a
CER
so
as
required
by
sequa.
The
e
IR
also
evaluated
alternatives
to
the
project.
These
include
no
project
alternatives.
H
This
isn't
one
it's
a
no
project
alternative,
one
which
is
essentially
keeping
the
airport
as
it
is
with
a
no
new
development.
The
second
is
no
project
alternative
number
two,
which
is
to
continue
development
with
the
existing
master
plan.
Basically,
this
would
be
build-out
of
the
master
plan
240
gates,
rather
than
42
gates,
no
Airport
Hotel,
and
no
changes
to
the
runway
configurations,
as
recommended
by
the
runway
runway
incursion
mitigation
study
by
the
FAA.
H
There
are
also
several
alternatives
that
were
considered
but
rejected
from
further
study
because
they
were
deemed
infeasible
on
one
was
to
relocate
the
airport
to
Moffett
Field,
relocating
the
project
to
a
new
airport
or
site
in
the
region
such
as
coyote
Valley,
or
commenting
the
man
or
other
barrier
ports.
All
these
were
found
to
be
infeasible.
H
During
the
public
review
process,
the
city
receives
74
public
comments
from
state
agencies,
local
jurisdictions
and
different
neighbors
and
community
community
interest
groups
and
individual
members
of
the
public.
The
main
issues
raised
during
this
public
comment
period
were
the
increase
in
airplane
noise
from
increased
air
traffic,
especially
in
northern
Santa
Clara
County
cities
during
South
flow
operations.
This
is
the
operations
that
occur
about
thirteen
percent
of
the
year,
especially
when
there's
rain
eat
Assoc
during
rainy
times
another
one.
H
You
know
air
quality
and
greenhouse
gas
and
impacts
from
airport
operations
in
aircraft
traffic
increases
on
local
highways,
expressways
and
near
other
nearby.
Roads
impacts
to
burrowing
owls,
including
a
desire
for
additional
mitigation
impacts
of
the
Guadalupe
River
riparian
quarter,
I'm
a
desire
for
improved
public
transportation
to
the
airport
and
as
well
as
others.
So
the
responses
to
these
comments
were
provided
and
the
first
amendment,
which
is
posted
and
people
were
notified,
On
February,
28
2020.
H
These
responded
to
all
these
comments
that
we
receive,
and
this
is
part
of
the
pack
of
those
provided
as
part
of
the
Planning
Commission
packet
I,
do
want
to
mention.
This
is
a
recommendation,
so
staff
recommends
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
City
Council
adopt
a
resolution
certifying
the
environmental
impact
report
and
making
findings
concerning
significant
impacts,
mitigation
measures,
alternatives
and
to
adopt
a
statement
of
overriding
considerations
and
a
related
mitigation
monitoring
and
reporting
program.
H
All
in
accordance
with
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act,
to
adopt
a
resolution
approving
a
major
amendment
to
the
airport
master
plan
for
the
normal
environment
at
a
San,
Jose,
International,
Airport,
and
actually
it's
three
approve
an
ordinance
amending
title
25.0
for
300,
be
one
of
the
San
Jose
municipal
code
to
increase
the
maximum
number
of
air
carry
gates
from
40
to
42.
I.
H
Do
also
want
to
mention
that,
since
publication
of
the
first
amendment,
we
receive
two
public
comments
from
community
members
concerned
about
airplane
noise
and
air
quality
impacts
from
from
airplanes
due
to
increased
air
traffic.
In
addition,
this
afternoon,
just
before
4:00
p.m.
we
received
a
letter
from
the
city
of
Santa
Clara,
responding
to
the
first
amendment,
raising
issues
on
our
response
to
their
comment.
Letter
on
the
e
I
are
related
to
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
Hazard,
hazardous
materials,
noise.
H
Transportation
and
transportation
I
do
want
to
mention
that
for
regard
to
transportation
impacts,
the
city
threshold
of
significance
is
vehicle,
Mouse,
traveled
or
not
level
of
service,
and
therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
sequa,
we
use
the
vehicle
miles
traveled
metric,
as
required
by
state
and
law.
However,
the
city
of
Santa
Clara
requested
some
additional
information
regarding
level
service
and
intersection
operations.
This
information
was
provided
even
though
it's
not
required
under
sequa.
H
It
was
provided
as
a
courtesy
and
these
responses
they
are
responding
to
to
do
not
address
anything
related
to
transportation
impacts
as
ringly
to
sequa.
I
do
have
available
to
help
respond
to
these
questions.
I'm
john
hess,
laura
of
Davey
J
powers
and
associates.
He
cannot
answer
questions
regarding
response
to
the
letter
or
other
aspects
of
the
environmental
impact
report.
We
also
have
biologists
that
has
also
worked
on
worked
on
DM
the
airport
project,
but
then
the
year
we
have
prepared
an
environmental
impact
report
that
is
thorough,
analyzes
all
and
discloses
all.
H
The
significant
impacts
identifies
mitigation
measures
and
identify
situations
where
those
mitigation
measures
do
not
reduce
to
lessen
significant
impact
and
therefore
must
be
significant,
must
be
deemed
significant
unavoidable.
All
of
this
is
laid
out
and
the
EEI
are
the
first
amendment
and
the
resolution
that's
set
forth
so,
and
staff
is
here
to
answer
any
questions
in
the
meantime,
I'm
going
to
pass
it
to
John
Hessler.
I
Good
evening,
commissioners
I'd
like
to
respond
to
the
portion
of
a
letter
that
came
today
from
the
city
of
Santa
Clara,
and
it
has
to
do
with
noise
impacts.
The
city
of
Santa
Clara
made
a
number
of
contentions
that
the
analysis
in
the
EIA
are
with
regard
to
noise
impacts.
Was
flawed,
I'd
like
to
address
those
for
the
record.
So
the
first
thing
is
a
santa
clara
contended
that
the
use
of
the
cnel-
that's
the
community
noise
exposure
level
fails
to
address
the
impact
of
noise
from
nighttime
flights
on
sleep
disturbance.
I
The
cnel
does
in
fact
address
this
issue,
because
each
flight
that
occurs
at
the
airport,
between
7:00
p.m.
and
10:00
p.m.
is
counted
as
three
flights
and
each
flight
to
and
from
the
airport
that
occurs
between
10:00
p.m.
and
7:00
a.m.
is
counted
as
if
ten
flights
had
occurred
and
that
waiting
is
purposely
done.
I
Recognizing
that
flights
that
occurred
during
those
hours
have
a
much
greater
potential
to
cause
sleep
disturbances.
So
that's
built
right
into
the
sea
and
he
yelled
and
I
point
out
that
this
is
actually
analogous
to
what
San
Jose
Santa
Clara.
And
most
of
these
do
when
we
use
the
LDN
in
our
general
plans,
it's
the
same
type
of
descriptor,
that
includes
penalties
for
nighttime
noise,
so
bottom
line
is
the
CDL
does
very
much
account
for
the
potential
for
sleep
disturbance
from
nighttime
flights.
I
This
there's
another
statement
in
the
letter
from
Santa
Clara
that
the
noise
analysis
relied
solely
on
the
cnel
in
terms
of
what
is
significant
and
what
is
not-
and
they
pointed
out
to
a
court
case
that
occurred
in
1991
called
Berkeley
keep
jets
over
the
bay.
It
was
an
appellate
secret
case
where
the
court
found
that
the
use
of
CDL
alone
was
insufficient
to
tell
the
whole
story
about
noise
impacts,
but
in
this
case
in
this
er
we
did
not
rely
solely
on
the
cnel.
I
We
in
fact
use
supplemental
metrics,
including
what
they
call
the
time
above
how
many
minutes
per
day.
The
noise
is
above
a
certain
level.
That's
a
nice
indicator
of
things
going
up
and
down.
We
also
looked
at
the
single
event
noise
level,
so
we've
done
this
in
this
Cir
and
in
the
previous
master
plane.
He
I
are
precisely
because
the
community
has
asked
for
a
more
thorough
discussion
of
noise
impacts
and
the
potential
effects
on
community.
I
So
finally,
Santa
Clara
also
faults
the
noise
analysis.
By
contending
it
relies
solely
on
a
relative
threshold
instead
of
an
absolute
threshold.
Santa
Clair
argues
that
well
what
if
noise
could
theoretically
increase
in
the
future,
and
it
could
keep
increasing
incrementally
and
so
long
as
there
is
no
absolute
threshold,
it
could
keep
going
up
inch
by
inch
and
it
would
never
be
called
out
as
significant
that's
their
contention,
but
they
fail
to
realize
that
we
do
have
an
absolute
threshold
in
the
ER,
and
that
is
the
sixty-five
decibel
noise
contour.
I
That
is
consistent
with
state
law.
It
defines
everything
within
the
65
as
being
incompatible
with
the
airport
and
just
to
illustrate
that
point.
The
airport
recently
completed
what
they
call
an
acoustical
treatment
program
and
they
treated
2675
residences
and
for
schools
within
the
65
decibel
contour,
because
by
definition
they
were
considered
incompatible
and
didn't
matter
how
they
got
there
or
whether
there
was
a
bigger
or
smaller
increase.
I
So,
interestingly
enough,
when
you
look
at
what
we're
now
showing
for
the
projected
contour
for
the
year,
2037,
that's
actually
smaller
than
the
area
previously
treated,
and
so
in
a
way
we
we
over
treated
in
the
past,
because
the
noise
footprint
was
bigger.
So
what
all
this
means
is
in
response
to
Santa
Clara's
concern
is
if,
for
some
reason,
the
trend
towards
smaller
contours
were
to
somehow
reverse,
and
things
were
starting
to
get
worse
again.
If
that
were
ever
to
happen,
there's
regular
updates
to
the
contour,
and
we
would
automatically
offer
treatment
to
any
resident.
I
A
C
You,
madam
chair,
the
e
IR
identifies
the
impacts
to
various
biological
elements,
including
significant
impacts
to
burrowing
owls.
It
identifies
a
degradation
of
habitat,
a
loss
of
habitat
and
actually
death
of
more
owls
the
mitigation.
There
are
several
elements
of
the
mitigation
program,
but
the
one
I'm
wondering
about
is
the
reliance
on
the
habitat
conservation
plant,
we're
talking
about
spending
money
as
I
understand
to
try
to
protect
the
population
of
burrowing
owls
in
the
South
Bay,
which
is
a
lovely
thing.
H
So
a
lot
of
currently
the
burrowing
owl
fees
that
are
paid
as
part
of
the
habitat
plan
are
being
used
to
fund
these
programs
to
help
raise
the
burrowing
owl
population
and
bring
it
up
because,
as
Ed
Sullivan
said,
there
is
definitely
concerned
because
across
the
northern
part
of
Santa
Clara
County
there's
been
a
precipitous
drop,
and
so
their
program
is
to
raise
and
help
the
burrowing
owls
and
put
them
in
other
locations.
They
may
be
better
just
to
survive.
J
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
Steve
rotten,
Bourne,
I'm,
a
wildlife
ecologist
and
vice
president
with
HT
Harvey,
&
Associates,
ecological
consultants.
We
prepared
the
biological
resources
report
on
which
the
biological
resources
section
of
the
air
was
prepared
and
Commissioner,
yes,
need.
Thank
you
for
your
question
about
that.
It's
a
good
question.
J
What
what
will
the
money
be
used
for
and
and
what
has
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
habitat
agency
done
for
the
burrowing
owl
to
date
and
I
actually
spoke
with
someone,
a
burrowing,
owl
expert
in
the
South
Bay
about
this
earlier
today,
and
his
response
was
without
what
the
habitat
agency
has
been
doing.
We
would
have
no
Bareilles
left
in
the
South
Bay,
and
so
he
was
able
to.
He
has
been
involved
in
a
lot
of
the
activities
that
Edmund
Sullivan.
J
The
director
of
the
habitat
agency
spoke
to
so
I'll
speak
to
some
of
those
a
little
more
specifically,
and
one
of
the
issues
that
has
come
up
is
what
habitat
has
been
acquired
for
the
the
burrowing
owl
or
set-aside
and
the
the
problem
with
burrowing
owl
populations
in
the
South
Bay
now
is
that
they've
declined
disproportionate
to
habitat
loss.
So,
while
habitat
loss
has
affected
them,
they've
disappeared
from
some
areas
that
look
perfect
for
them,
but
the
populations
have
just
gotten
so
low
that
it's
not
just
a
matter
of
acquiring
more
habitat.
J
More
needs
to
be
done
to
maintain,
enhance
that
habitat
and
to
protect
burrowing
owls.
So
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
done,
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
habitat
agency,
has
had
five-year
management
plans
and
there
are
five-year
management
plans
that
will
be
updated
after
five
years
and
they'll
learn
from
what
they've
they've
found
during
the
five-year
management
plans
for
the
San
Jose
Santa
Clara,
Water,
Pollution,
Control,
plant
buffer
lands
and
the
Warm
Springs
unit
of
the
refuge.
J
Two
areas
that
historically
have
supported
large
numbers
of
burrowing
owls
and
those
management
plans
include
some
habitats
in
and
efforts.
Such
as
providing
new
soil
mounds
that
have
loose
soil
that
not
only
burrowing
owls
can
use,
but
that
ground
squirrels
can
better
dig
burrows
in
so
that
burrowing
owls
can
use
those
installing
artificial
burrows
in
those
mounds
weeding
the
mounds,
because
a
big
problem
in
South
Bay
with
regard
to
burrowing,
owl
habitat
management,
is
that
the
vegetation
around
their
burrows
grows
up
way
too
way
too
high.
J
And
so
the
house
can't
see
predators
coming
and
they
usually
abandon
those
burrows.
So
a
lot
better
habitat
maintenance
in
those
areas,
they've
been
banding
the
owl
so
that
they
can
see
where
they
move
around.
They
monitor
the
number
from
year
to
year
and
they
have
cameras
on
a
number
of
the
burrows
so
that
they
can
see
what
predators
visit
those
sites
and
in
terms
of
the
efficacy
of
those
efforts
in
2012,
there
were
two
pairs
of
burrowing
owls
at
the
San
Jose
water
flush
and
control
plant
buffer
lands.
J
It
increased
from
two
pairs
in
2012
to
17
pairs
in
2017.
As
a
result,
direct
result
of
those
habitat
enhancements
and
the
the
management
that's
been
going
on,
and
so
that
will
happen
at
Warm
Springs.
Also,
we
also
heard
about
the
captive
rearing
program
to
many
of
these.
Owls
are
dying
between
breeding
seasons,
so
one
thing
they
did
last
year
they
took
16
owls
into
captivity.
They
kept
them
over
the
winter.
They
in
captivity
they
fed
them.
J
None
of
them
died,
so
those
owls
those
are
young
juvenile
owls,
most
of
which
would
have
died
during
the
winter.
They
survived
the
winter
and
now
they're
going
to
release
them.
They're
gonna
release
five
pairs,
this
Saturday
at
Shoreline
Park,
and
when
they
release
them,
they
do
what
we
used
to
do
back
in
the
late
90s.
J
We
would
actively
relocate
these
owls
we'd,
move
them
to
areas
that
were
good
for
them
and
keep
them
inside
enclosures
and
feed
the
Owls
until
they
lay
eggs
once
they
lay
eggs.
They're
imprinted
on
that
area,
they're
not
going
to
leave
that
area.
So
it's
it's
helping
the
Owls
to
settle
in
areas
that
we
know
are
being
managed
well
for
them
where
predators
are
being
managed
well
for
them,
and
they
even
looked
at
those
owls,
because
there
are
so
few
hours
left
in
the
South
Bay.
J
They
don't
want
closely-related
howls
breeding
with
each
other,
so
they
did
genetic
studies
and
they
pair
up
owls
that
are
not
closely
related,
so
they're,
really,
this
is,
is
cutting-edge
in
terms
of
burrowing,
owl
conservation.
What
to
habitat
agency
is
doing
with
these
owls
and
then
the
the
supplemental
feeding
study
they
actually
just
putting
mice
froze
thought-out,
frozen
mice
in
the
mouths
of
some
of
the
the
nest.
C
J
Don't
think
the
area
itself
has
become
so
unproductive.
I
think
that
the
burrowing
owl
population
kind
of
reached
a
demographic
threshold
where
there
are
a
few
so
few
owls
that
when
owls
die
in
one
area
that
there
aren't
enough
owls
that
are
immigrating
into
that
area
from
other
South
Bay
locations.
So
what
they're
trying
to
do
is
to
increase
the
population
and
this
hands-on
approach
that
you've
pointed
out.
It
is
more
hands-on
than
we
want
to
do
with
populations
of
any
species,
but
in
the
in
the
long
term.
J
The
idea
is
to
do
this,
to
increase
the
survivorship
and
the
productivity
over
the
natural
levels,
to
try
to
get
the
population
up
to
the
point
where
the
the
natural
survivorship
and
the
natural
productivity
can
still
maintain
a
population.
So
I
agree
with
you.
These
aren't
the
kinds
of
hands-on
management
that
we
want
to
be
doing
in
the
long
term,
but
they
are
necessary
because
there
are
so
few
hours
now
and.
C
J
K
Question
the
staff
on
breeding
page
25
of
your
report
very
detailed,
great
job
by
the
way-
and
this
is
more
for
mr.
and
mrs.
Smith
watching
on
television
tonight
since
we're
all
home
what
would
be
the
negative
economic
impact
of
the
city
of
San
Jose?
If
looking
at
your
hypotheticals
San
Jose
didn't
have
an
airport
anymore,.
E
Your
question
is:
if
what
are
you,
what
would
be
the
implications
on
the
regional
economy
if
the
airport
didn't
exist?
Correct
boy,
that's
a
that's!
Quite
a
question:
I
I
mean
I,
really,
don't
know
how
to
answer
that
I
mean
the
fact
is
the
you
know
the
airport's
here
and,
and
it's
been
a
an
asset
to
San
Jose
in
Silicon
Valley
for
a
number
of
decades,
and
they
did
say
it
the
scenario
of
what,
if
the
airport
wasn't
here,
I
don't
know.
Certainly
it's
the
Silicon
Valley
wouldn't
be
what
it
is
today
well
and.
K
Then
that's
really
where
I'm
headed
okay.
Fundamentally,
what
makes
this
city
world-class?
Is
this
airport
in
many
ways
it
is,
is
a
gateway
that
brings
folks
from
throughout
the
world
to
our
city,
so
I
think,
looking
at
your
report
analyzing
your
report,
I
thought
it
was
interesting
that
you
did
talk
about
that,
obviously
not
in
that
type
of
detail,
but
that
he
did
talk
about
the
economic
and
land-use
implications
if
the
San
Jose
Airport
was
abandoned
and
moves
moved
elsewhere.
So
that's
really
where
I
met
it.
So.
Thank
you.
K
C
We
do
have
an
economic
benefits
study
on
our
web
site.
I'm
trying
to
pull
it
out
cannot
give
some
of
those
numbers
in
employment
base,
direct
and
indirect
employment
that
the
airport
creates
and
also
the
dollars
and
the
dollars
recirculating
in
the
community.
I
just
can't
bring
it
up
enough
to
tell
you,
but
it
is
the
sniffing
impact
and
we
do
have
significant
number
of
businesses
on
the
airport
and
we
do
have
a
significant
members
number
of
businesses
that
use
our
report
in
a
regional
area.
A
F
C
Mr.
commissioner,
Judy
Ross
assistant
director,
sorry
can
see
the
hotel
would
be
more
like
a
private
public
partnership.
It
will
do
a
competitive
process
to
bring
in
a
developer
and
that
development
per
would
bring
in
hotel.
Tell
your
so.
Basically,
we
would
leased
the
land
and
whoever
successful
in
that
solicitation
process,
and
then
it
would
be
like
a
land
lease
and
a
concession
agreement,
but
it
would
be
operated
by
whoever
was
successful
in
a
competitive
process.
Thank.
F
You
very
much
and
then
another
quick
question
about.
There
were
comments
from
the
public
about
round
public
transportation
options.
As
far
as
getting
to
the
airport
I
know,
that's
always
been
a
concern.
I.
Imagine,
there's
a
coordination
that
has
to
happen
with
those
with
other
agencies,
so
it
can't
be
included
in
the
master
plan.
Is
that
the
case
and
if
so
or
if
not,
could
you
speak
to
where
any
potential
upgrades
in
that
regard
could
be
headed
beyond
art
and
the
shuttles
and
everything
we've
already
heard
about?
Yes,.
E
It's
actually
part
of
existing
master
plan
to
accommodate
some
sort
of
transit
system
which
I
still
yet
to
be
defined.
There
was
a
a
project
that
was
in
the
county
measure
a
in
a
year,
2000
that
called
for
a
an
automated
people
mover
that
would
connect
the
airport
terminals
to
the
north
first
tree
light
rail
line
and
and
the
Santa
Clara
Caltrain
and
future
BART
station.
E
The
latest
VTA
cost
estimates,
for
that
is
like
800
million
dollars,
and
you
compare
that
to
the
the
free
shuttle
bus
that
has
been
operating
for
years
to
those
locations
that
costs
1
million
dollars
a
year
in
operating
costs.
So
there's
yet
to
be
a
good
business
case
to
bring
in
a
some
sort
of
transit
system.
We
have
designed
the
the
garages
and
terminals,
particularly
the
rental,
car
garage
and
Terminal
B.
F
You
I
appreciate
it
and
I'm
one
final,
quick
plug
as
someone
with
not
the
best
knees
in
the
world
and
always
seem
to
get
the
fight
at
the
far
end
of
the
terminal.
I
know
that
the
people
movers
are
the
moving
walkways
have
been
in
conversation
for
a
while
just
another
plug
you
don't
answer
a
question
just
making
sure
that
that's
something
that
you're
aware
would
be
really
nice
and
these
really
long
terminals
that
we
have.
But
thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
today.
Take
you
mister.
A
C
Yes,
madam
chair,
there
were
five
items
that
were
recommended
from
this
commission
to
City
Council.
All
of
them
were
approved,
the
first
three
had
to
do
with
our
conforming
rezoning
of
specific
properties.
The
fourth
had
to
do
with
their
mobile
home
land
use,
designation
and
then
the
fifth
had
to
do
with
the
hackers
hurricane
middle
school.
All
we
approved
specifically
the
hacker
middle
school.
The
appeal
was
denied.
The
project
was
approved
with
conditions.
A
B
Was
that
the
city
council
did
approve
the
mobile
home
redesignate
for
the
two
parks
that
were
the
subject
of
the
matter?
They
directed
staff
to
begin
the
process
for
the
other
mobile
home
parks
in
San
Jose.
However,
the
mayor
also
and
some
of
the
council
members
recognized
that
those
amendments
are
unnecessary
to
serve
the
purposes
because
they
all
would
require
a
general
plan
amendment
which
could
be
denied
by
the
council
at
any
time.
So,
unlike
these
two
parks,
they
could
not
the
two
parks
at
issue.
B
They
could
not
easily
convert
or
you
know
attempt
to
convert.
It
would
take
a
lot
more
process
that
was
completely
discretionary.
However,
they
also
did
not
at
the
time
Planning
Department
advised
the
council
of
how
much
money
it
will
take
to
do
to
accomplish
all
of
those
general
plan,
amendments
and
rezoning.
They
have
to
be
done
concurrently
under
state
law
now
and
the
City
Council
has
not
budgeted
that
amount,
so
the
work
will
probably
not
start
until
there
is
a
budget
for
staff
to
do
that.
Work.