San Jose City Council
October 22, 2024

NVF:JAC:AXY:KMF
10/1/2024

T-1201.089 / 2150557_3 1
Council Agenda: 10/22/2024
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

RESOLUTION NO. ______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

JOSE MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21676

THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ENVISION
SAN JOSE 2040 GENERAL PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH

THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21670 , AND PART IALLY

OVERRULING THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY AIRPORT
LAND USE COMMISSION ’S ADOPTED AIRPORT LAND

USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR THE SAN JOSE MINETA

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FILE NO. GPT24-001

WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable provisions of the State Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code Sections 21001-21709, (the “Act”), the City of San José (“City”), operating in its capacity as both the local land use jurisdiction and the owner and operator of the San José Mineta International Airport (“SJC”) may, after a public hearing on the matter, overrule decisions rendered by the Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) for the County of Santa Clara, in whole or in part, by a two-thirds vote of the City Council, so long as the City Council makes specific findings that a proposed action is consistent with the purposes set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 21670; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676, a local agency whose general plan includes areas covered by an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) shall submit a copy of its general plan, or amendments to its general plan, to the ALUC for a determination of whether the general plan or amendment is consistent or inconsistent with the ALUCP, and if the ALUC determines that the general plan or amendment is inconsistent with the ALUCP the local agency may overrule that determination, pursuant to the procedures and requirements set forth therein; and

NVF:JAC:AXY:KMF
10/1/2024

T-1201.089 / 2150557_3 2
Council Agenda: 10/22/2024
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302.3, a local agency is required to maintain a general plan that is consistent with the applicable ALUCP; however, if the legislative body responsible for a general plan does not concur with any provision of the ALUCP, it may satisfy the provisions of Section 65302.3 by adopting findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676; and

WHEREAS, the City is proposing to amend its Envision San José 2040 General Plan (as adopted on November 1, 2011 and amended on January 31, 2024) to be consistent with the SJC ALUCP in all respects except that the City is proposing to overrule the ALUC’s adopted noise contours and resultant Airport Influence Area (“AIA”) for the SJC ALUCP, because the data supporting the AIA is erroneous, overbroad, and not based on substantial evidence, and instead utilize the noise contours depicted in the most recent SJC Airport Master Plan and modified AIA; and

WHEREAS, the overarching purpose of the Act is to enhance and promote airport land use compatibility, which is “the reconciliation of how land development and airports function together.” (State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“Handbook”) (October 2011), p. x.), and, over time, the compatibility rubric has evolved to focus on four inter- related factors: noise, overflight, safety, and airspace protection (Handbook, p. xi); and

WHEREAS, the City submitted two letters to the ALUC dated March 14, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and July 5, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, representing a dutiful effort by the City to coordinate with the ALUC on its development of the SJC ALUCP, while identifying flaws in the noise contours depicted in the ALUCP and referring the ALUC to the corresponding accurate data that should have been used to delineate the SJC noise contours in the ALUCP; and

NVF:JAC:AXY:KMF
10/1/2024

T-1201.089 / 2150557_3 3
Council Agenda: 10/22/2024
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

WHEREAS, as explained by the City in those letters, the ALUCP’s noise contours do not abide by the parameters of the most recent SJC Airport Master Plan adopted in 2020, and instead continue to artificially inflate the SJC Airport Master Plan operations data by 50%, and, as a result, the associated noise contours are oversized and fail to reflect changes attributable to the latest aircraft fleet mix (newer and quieter aircraft) operating at SJC, as documented in the aviation forecast approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”); and

WHEREAS, the City further provided the ALUC, as an attachment to its July 5, 2023 letter, a forecast validation report prepared by a recognized aviation planning expert (HNTB Corporation), which found that SJC’s “operational activity is tracking very closely with” the 2020 Airport Master Plan’s aviation forecast projections, thereby underscoring the improper use of “inflated forecasts” in the latest SJC ALUCP; and

WHEREAS, California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics (“Caltrans Aero”) submitted a letter to the ALUC dated March 7, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, in which Caltrans Aero “strongly encourage[d]” the ALUC to utilize the aviation forecast data provided in SJC’s 2020 Airport Master Plan, and in which Caltrans Aero observed that the Airport Master Plan provides “sufficient information” for planning purposes and underscored that its use would be consistent with the Act’s direction that the SJC ALUCP “shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan … as determined by [Caltrans Aero] …”; and

WHEREAS, combined, these letters from the City and Caltrans Aero provide relevant, substantiated evidence regarding the evidentiary rubric that should have been utilized by the ALUC when adopting the SJC ALUCP and support the City’s proposal to overrule the ALUC’s AIA and associated noise contours at this time; and

NVF:JAC:AXY:KMF
10/1/2024

T-1201.089 / 2150557_3 4
Council Agenda: 10/22/2024
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

WHEREAS, the Caltrans Aero letter is advisory to the City Council under Public Utilities Code Section 21676; and

WHEREAS, on August 28, 2024, the ALUC considered the City initiated General Plan text amendment (GPT24-0001) with a partial overrule of the ALUCs adopted noise contours and resultant AIA, and found that the proposed General Plan Text Amendment was inconsistent with the ALUCP for SJC; and

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2024, the City notified the ALUC and Caltrans Aero in writing, of the City’s proposed partial overrule of the ALUC’s adopted ALUCP for SJC dated March 27, 2024, and provided a copy to the ALUC and Caltrans Aero of the City’s proposed overrule findings in a manner consistent with applicable state law; and

WHEREAS, by letter dated October 1, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference, Caltrans Aero responded that it supports the City’s decision to conduct a partial overrule of the Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission’s adopted noise contours and the resultant AIA identified in the March 27, 2024, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for San Jose Mineta International Airport based on the finding that the ALUC did not utilize an FAA-approved Airport Master Plan as the basis for the ALUCP update in accordance with Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21675; and

WHEREAS, on October 22, 2024, the City Council heard and considered all testimony and other evidence presented and submitted, including a memorandum dated September 25, 2024, from the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, related to this item;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE THAT:

NVF:JAC:AXY:KMF
10/1/2024

T-1201.089 / 2150557_3 5
Council Agenda: 10/22/2024
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

SECTION 1. Government Code Section 65302.3 provides that a local agency is required to maintain a general plan that is consistent with the applicable ALUCP; however, if the legislative body responsible for a general plan does not concur with any provision of the ALUCP, it may satisfy the provisions of Section 65302.3 by adopting findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676.

SECTION 2. Public Utilities Code Section 21676 provides that a local governmental body may overrule the ALUC’s determination if it makes specific findings that the proposed local government body’s action is consistent with the purposes of Section 21670. The City Council hereby makes the following overriding findings with regard to overruling the ALUC’s noise contours and resultant AIA depicted in the SJC ALUCP and instead utilizing the noise contours depicted in the most recent SJC Airport Master Plan and modified AIA:

A. The recitals above are incorporated herein as findings.

B. The first purpose of Section 21670 is to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in the state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of California airport noise standards and prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. The second purpose of Section 21670 is to protect public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.

NVF:JAC:AXY:KMF
10/1/2024

T-1201.089 / 2150557_3 6
Council Agenda: 10/22/2024
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

C. The City is proposing to utilize the noise contours contained within the most recent SJC Airport Master Plan adopted in 2020. Those noise contours are based on aviation activity data accepted by both federal (FAA) and state (Caltrans Aero) agencies with subject matter expertise.

This approach is consistent with both the Act and the Handbook, with the latter identifying an adopted Airport Master Plan as “one of the preferred sources” for noise contours. (See Pub. Util. Code, §21675, subd. (a); Handbook, pp. 3-7 to 3-8.)

D. The Airport Master Plan’s noise contours being utilized by the City have been the subject of a recent validation exercise. The author of that exercise, a well-established aviation consulting firm with technical expertise, confirmed that the Airport Master Plan’s aviation activity forecast is very closely tracking actual activity data. (HNTB, SJC Forecast Validation (June 2023).) This conclusion affirms the use of Airport Master Plan’s noise contours for airport land use compatibility planning purposes.

E. The City has repeatedly notified the ALUC that its noise contours for SJC are unsubstantiated due to the improper use of an inflation factor for aviation activity growth, and thereby result in the imposition of development restrictions on an overbroad geographic area. The ALUC has not corrected the identified deficiencies in its noise contours, and has not modified its approach based on detailed input provided by both the City and Caltrans Aero.

F. Combined, the substantial record evidence demonstrates that the City’s noise contours, as sourced from the Airport Master Plan, align with the purposes of the Act because those contours provide an accurate, tailored depiction of SJC’s operational noise environs. The contours ensure that NVF:JAC:AXY:KMF
10/1/2024

T-1201.089 / 2150557_3 7
Council Agenda: 10/22/2024
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
noise-related compatibility policies developed by the ALUC will apply to the appropriate geographic areas without creating undue overreach (i.e., unnecessarily imposing compatibility restrictions on land use development in areas not subject to established noise levels) and while facilitating compatible land use development.

SECTION 3. Therefore, based upon the findings set forth above, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment GPT24-001 to update text in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan and the Diridon Station Area Plan reflecting the updated Airport Land Use Plan and replacing the Airport Influence Area diagram with an updated diagram aligned with the City approved modified AIA (based upon Figure 2 – “AIA lines Scenario 2” of the project IS/ND adopted on 3/27/2024) and Airport Master Plan noise contours would be consistent with the purposes set forth in California Public Utilities Code Section 21670, regarding protection of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the publics exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports, to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.

SECTION 4. Based upon all of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the City Council hereby overrules the noise contours and resultant Airport Influence Area depicted in the Airport Land Use Commission’s adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for San José Mineta International Airport dated March 27, 2024.

NVF:JAC:AXY:KMF
10/1/2024

T-1201.089 / 2150557_3 8
Council Agenda: 10/22/2024
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

ADOPTED this _____ day of ___________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

MATT MAHAN
Mayor
ATTEST:

TONI J. TABER, MMC
City Clerk

March 14, 2023

VIA EMAIL AND US CERTIFIED MAIL
Carl Hilbrants, Senior Planner
County of Santa Clara
County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street; East Wing, 7th Floor
San José, CA 95110
RE: City of San José comments on proposed amendment to the SJC CLUP Airport Influence Area (AIA) and associated Initial Study/Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Hilbrants,
The City of San José (City) has reviewed information relating to the proposed amendment to the SJC CLUP Airport Influence Area (AIA) and associated Initial Study/Negative Declaration. The City submits the following comments and significant concerns regarding the CEQA process, the CLUP amendment process, and the proposed AIA amendment itself. The City requests the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) defer the hearing on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration until County ALUC staff have addressed all comments in this letter, provided the requested analysis and required coordination with the City, and re-circulated the CEQA document and proposed CLUP amendment.

INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Initial Study/Negative Declaration fails as a public disclosure document under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it lacks a complete and accurate project description.

Further, the analysis includes incorrect use of data and modeling, and lacks justification. Absent an adequate project description and analysis, the City cannot conduct a thorough review of the project’s potential environmental impacts related to the proposed amendments to the AIA, nor can we evaluate the scale of potential changes to the City’s General Plan and development review process as a result of the proposed amendments.

The Initial Study/Negative Declaration does not include a Notice of Intent with key requirements for public circulation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(g). This includes the start and end dates of the public review period and the addresses of locations where the documents can be viewed (including the location posted on the Internet).

The Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration was not properly circulated to City staff. County of Santa Clara (County) staff have been verbally reporting updates on progress at monthly ALUC meetings, with no material shared in agenda packets for review or comment since November 2021. While one member of City staff received a copy of the Initial Study Negative Declaration on December 7, 2022, during a meeting between a member of County ALUC staff and City staff on January 9, 2023, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was not discussed. The meeting took place after the comment period closed for the Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Furthermore, the City has found no evidence that noticing requirements pursuant to Section 15072 of the DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

EXHIBIT A
CEQA Guidelines have been followed. The City did not receive mailed copies of the Notice of Intent and could not find evidence a Notice of Intent was posted in a newspaper of record. The City requests County ALUC staff immediately provide a copy of all required notices and postings. Further, the County shall revise the environmental documents in compliance with CEQA and re-circulate the Initial Study/Negative Declaration pursuant to the noticing requirements of Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The City’s specific comments regarding the Initial Study/Negative Declaration are detailed below:

1. 2020 Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2037 Combined Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Noise Contours
Pg. 1, Paragraph 3 (Project Description): Paragraph references the Noise Assessment in SJC’s Airport Master Plan EIR. The horizon year analyzed in the report is 2037 not 2040. The City requests a copy of the noise contours that the proposed AIA is based on to compare them to the 2037 CNEL noise contours, as the portion of the AIA that covers the City has grown significantly in size and shrank significant in size in the City of Santa Clara without any analysis to support this increase.

2. Illegible and Incomplete Graphics
Pg. 2: Graphic “Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses” is illegible, does not include a figure number, and does not show changes proposed in the southern part of the AIA.

Please provide a legible graphic which shows the entirety of the proposed changes.

Pg. 3: Graphic “San Jose International Airport – Area". The figure is unlabeled; has no legend, labels, scale, or north arrow, and does not show the entire area covered by the proposed changes.

The entire proposed AIA needs to be shown, not just a snapshot of Downtown San José. A larger map, or a map on several pages, which includes street names and parcels should be included so the City and members of the public can see the locations of the proposed changes.

3. Inaccurate or Relevant Noise Analysis
Pg. 1, Paragraph 5 (Project Description): Paragraph states “The proposed AIA boundary was developed pursuant to information provided within the BridgeNet International data sets and was prepared to be consistent with the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours and the Safety Zones noted within the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Noise Assessment for the Master Plan Environmental Impact Report”.

If, as stated above, the proposed AIA boundary was developed pursuant to the BridgeNet analysis included in the Noise Assessment for the 2020 Airport Master Plan EIR, the AIA in San José would decrease or stay the same size as the existing AIA. The 2037 65 dB CNEL noise contour in San José shrank in size from previous forecasts due to the change in aircraft fleet mix (newer and quieter aircraft).

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

4. Incorrect Use of Data and Modeling; Justification for Increase in AIA Pg. 17, Paragraph 4, entitled “discussion,” states: “Conversely, approval of the proposed AIA boundary will remove CLUP protections for areas that are in the current AIA that will no longer be within the modeled 65 dB CNEL noise contour.”
Reference comment #3. The CEQA document states the noise contours and operational levels are based on the data in the 2020 Mineta San José International Airport Noise Assessment for the Master Plan EIR Noise Assessment, completed by BridgeNet. However, the proposed AIA adds CLUP protections for areas in the City that are not in the modeled 2037 CNEL noise contours.

Pg. 18, Paragraph 2, entitled “discussion,” states: “For the parcels south of the SJC airport that will be added to the proposed AIA, these will potentially benefit from the CLUP requirements to mitigate noise impacts for new projects within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour, resulting in a positive outcome by incorporating sound attenuation strategies and materials into new construction”.

The existing AIA boundary at Floyd Street between South 2nd Street and Vine Street already encompasses the 65 dB CNEL contour from the SJC 2037 CNEL noise contours. The proposed change expands the AIA beyond the 65 dB CNEL contour and disregards the data from the 2037 CNEL noise contours. The proposed change in the AIA provides no justification or explanation on why new projects that are located outside of the existing 65 dB CNEL noise contour are being added to the proposed AIA.

Pg. 19, Paragraph 3, entitled “discussion,” states: “within the City of San José, approximately 240 net acres of land will be added to the AIA. Included within the 240 acres are lands between Monterey Road (Highway) and Highway 87 near West Alma Avenue which are predominantly zoned Residential Neighborhood, Mixed Use Neighborhood, Heavy Industrial and Urban Residential along with limited areas zoned Open Space, Parklands, and Habitat (see Figures 1, 2 and 3 on Pages 2, 3 and 4 of this document). None of the parcels with the 65 dB CNEL contours would have any significant development-limiting impact after inclusion in the updated AIA.

Currently, these areas are mostly fully developed or have zoning designations that limit development such that the SJC CLUP’s height and noise policies would not limit development.

Future redevelopment of parcels in these areas with noise-sensitive land uses, such as schools, religious congregations, hospitals, auditoriums, and amphitheaters, would be discouraged but not prohibited.”
There is no figure 3 included in the document. The figure references and labels must be included.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Additionally, none of the additional acreages discussed in paragraph 3 falls within the 2037 65 dB CNEL noise contour. Given the distance from the Airport is such that City zoning designations already protect for height and noise restrictions, there is no justification for including the additional parcels within the amended AIA.

In order to comply with CEQA, the Initial Study and all supporting documents must be revised to address the comments above and re-circulated for public review prior to consideration by the ALUC.

CLUP AMENDMENT PROCESS COMMENTS

1. The CLUP Amendment Process Has Failed to Comply with the Stakeholder Consultation Requirements of State Law.

While City staff has not been provided with any draft amendments to the CLUP, the minimal project description provided in the CEQA document indicates that a CLUP amendment is being proposed. The City is the primary local jurisdiction that will be impacted by any proposed changes to the AIA.
a) The City requests the ALUC to update the AIA in accordance with state law. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Section 2.4.2, citing Public Utilities Code section 21675 (c), states that any amendment to the AIA requires preparation of a CLUP Amendment:

The review and amendment process which includes preparation of a draft ALUCP and environmental document, circulation for review and comment among affected agencies and the public, a noticed public meeting, incorporation of comments, and adoption by resolution of the ALUCP and its CEQA document. Coordination with local jurisdictions is important, particularly if the changes affect general and specific plan consistency with the ALUCP. – California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, Section 2.4.2.

PUC Section 21675(c) states, “The Airport influence area shall be established by the commission after hearing and consultation with the involved agencies.” No such consultation and hearing with the City has occurred. When the project description is inadequate and misleading, as explained above, there can be no meaningful review and comment by affected agencies and the public. The documents must be revised to be consistent with the law and the relevant plans and studies, and recirculated.

The City has not been provided a Draft CLUP that incorporates the updated AIA boundaries (Section 3.7 of the CLUP discusses the bounds of the existing CLUP, while Figure 8 provides a visual representation). The City requests a Draft CLUP, including the bounds of the proposed AIA with sufficient time for meaningful review and comment prior to any ALUC hearing on the item.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Given the significant impacts the City will experience with the proposed AIA amendment, the County ALUC staff provided the absolute minimal amount of coordination and consultation with the City and the information provided to the City by ALUC staff was inadequate. When ALUC staff met with a member of City staff on January 9, 2023, ALUC staff represented the same misleading information described in the Initial Study that the proposed AIA amendment is being prepared to be consistent with the CNEL contours within the adopted Airport Master Plan. As discussed above, despite the CNEL contours shrinking in the City, the proposed AIA amendment would increase the AIA within San Jose by a net 240 acres, well beyond the adopted CNEL contours. Further, when City staff asked ALUC staff if an amendment to the CLUP was being proposed, County ALUC staff stated that they were not sure if the proposed AIA amendment required a CLUP amendment. The City cannot adequately respond to a proposal when such proposal is misrepresented and/or facts are omitted and/or there is no clear direction on the proposed action from ALUC. b) The City is the primary stakeholder for the SJC CLUP. Any proposed changes to the AIA that impact the City should be communicated and any conversations documented. Only one conversation was scheduled between County ALUC Planning Staff and City staff, and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was also sent to one City Planning staff member.

2. The last major amendment to the CLUP was in 2011.

Public Utilities Code section 21675(a) states in relevant part, “The commission's airport land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan….” (see also California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Section 1.3.1.) The Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan was amended in April 2020 extending the horizon year and demand forecast to 2037, updating the layout and sizing of various landside facilities to adequately serve the projected 2037 demand, and adding airfield safety improvement projects (including the closure and removal of Runway 11/29 from the Airport Layout Plan) as a result of the 2015 Runway Incursion Mitigation (RIM) Study.

Despite these significant updates to the Airport Master and Layout Plans in 2020, the CLUP remains unchanged and does not reflect the current Airport plans. SJC’s Airport Layout Plan was approved in 2020 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but the CLUP still references the 2007 SJC Airport Layout Plan. The City requests the forthcoming CLUP amendment incorporate updates from the 2020 Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan.

PROPOSED AIA AMENDMENT COMMENTS

1. Misleading project description & proposed AIA amendment The description of the proposed AIA changes are misleading because the expansion of the AIA does not appear to be based on the 2037 CNEL noise contours from the SJC 2020 Airport Master Plan EIR, and no rationale is provided for the proposed AIA expansion.

While we wholly support policies and programs that ensure development is planned to avoid or mitigate conflicts with the Airport, this proposal also appears to arbitrarily increase the number DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. of actions that the City must refer to the ALUC. Given the expansion of the AIA in San Jose, more City projects will require referral to the ALUC with no justification for such an expansion of the ALUC role. The referral process can add months to the timeline for an action that requires an ALUC referral, and unnecessary referrals slow the City’s work on adopting policies to address key issues such as the housing crisis. Any such change must be rational and accompanied by an appropriate analysis and evidence justifying the change.

2. Discrepancy between proposed AIA and adopted 2037 CNEL contours.

The stated purpose of this amendment to the AIA is to “ensure that CLUP land use measures that minimize public exposure to noise and safety hazards within areas surrounding SJC align with the noise and safety boundaries in the new Airport Master Plan” (emphasis added)1. The noise study for the SJC Airport Master Plan EIR, completed and adopted by San José City Council in April 20202, shows that the 2037 CNEL noise contours south of SJC within the City shrank significantly in size from previous forecasts, due to the change in aircraft fleet mix and the introduction of newer and quieter aircraft. In comparison, the SJC CLUP uses noise contours that were prepared 20 years ago from the 2003 Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Master Plan Update Project

3. The CLUP contours project noise analysis out to the year 2022 and are significantly larger in size than the current SJC 2037 CNEL noise contours. The proposed AIA boundary in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration adds an additional net 240 acres in San José, despite the Airport Master Plan 2037 CNEL noise contours shrinking in size.

Lastly, the California Business and Professions Code 11010(b)(13)(B) states “an “airport influence area,” also known as an “airport referral area”, is the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses.”
Given the existing AIA boundary has been in place since 2011 and has been effective in providing safety, noise, and height protection for SJC, the City proposes the ALUC adopt SJC’s Master Plan EIR 2037 CNEL noise contours and retain the existing AIA boundary in the SJC CLUP (with only the removal of the Traffic Pattern and Runway 11/29 Turning Safety Zones). These safety zones are not required, as the completion of the Airport’s 2015 Runway Incursion Mitigation (RIM) Study formally closed Runway 11/29. The significant reduction of the proposed AIA in Santa Clara provides less height protection (FAR Part 77, 7460 Determination of No Hazard, and Avigation Easements), which are critical to the Airport. The proposed changes to the AIA appear arbitrary, as they are not supported by the relevant studies.

Given the information provided, including the lack of a fully complete CEQA document, lack of meaningful and required stakeholder coordination on the CLUP amendment process, and 1 Initial Study Environmental Checklist and Evaluation for the County of Santa Clara prepared for County File No. ALUC-22- 003
2 The Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan update were in progress between 2018-2020 and were not impacted by the global COVID-19 pandemic.
3 Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Master Plan Update Project, Second Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report, Appendix A, Aircraft Noise Analysis
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. concerns with the proposed AIA amendment, it is apparent further review and analysis is necessary. We understand that you intend to place the AIA amendment on the March 22, 2023, ALUC agenda. The City requests the item be deferred and that County ALUC staff address the comments in this letter and provide the additional analysis and required coordination with the City, prior to recirculation of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and proposed CLUP amendment. Please inform the undersigned of your intent with regard to addressing these deficiencies. We expect that this action will not be heard by the ALUC until these issues are addressed.

Sincerely,
/s/ /s/
Chris Burton John Aitken, A.A.E.

Director of Planning, Building, Code Enforcement Director of Aviation cc: Jacqueline R. Onciano
Samuel Gutierrez
County Counsel
Matthew Friedman, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. 200 East Santa Clara Street, 16th Floor Tower, San José, CA 95113-1905 tel (408) 535-1900 fax (408) 998-3131 July 5, 2023

VIA EMAIL AND US CERTIFIED MAIL
Carl Hilbrants, Senior Planner
County of Santa Clara
County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street; East Wing, 7th Floor
San José, CA 95110
RE: City of San José comments on proposed redline amendment to the SJC ALUCP Dear Mr. Hilbrants,
The City of San José (City) has carefully reviewed the proposed redline amendments to the San José Mineta International Airport (SJC) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The City submits the following comments and continues to express significant concerns with the proposed forecasting, resultant noise contours, and expanded Airport Influence Area (AIA).

SUMMARY
On December 2, 2022, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was released for a proposed amendment to the SJC ALUCP that would, if approved, revise and significantly increase the noise contours and resultant AIA for the SJC ALUCP. On March 16, 2023, the City sent a letter to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) expressing three main concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the ALUCP, including the increase in noise contours and AIA:

1. Failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

2. Failure to comply with consultation requirements specified in State law.

3. Concerns with the ALUC’s reliance on an inaccurate forecast for SJC and a resultant improper application of SJC’s 2037 noise contours.

Following the ALUC meeting on March 22, 2023, the ALUC continued the hearing on the proposed AIA to June 28, 2023 and directed County ALUC staff to:

1. Prepare a revised IS/ND for the proposed ALUCP AIA amendment.

2. Prepare an ALUCP amendment incorporating the proposed AIA.

NORA FRIMANN, CITY ATTORNEY
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

EXHIBIT B
2 3. Engage in consultation with the City on the proposed AIA.

On May 23, 2023, the City met with ALUC staff and Commission members to discuss the City’s concerns regarding the amendments to the ALUCP, including, but not limited to, the ALUC’s utilization of an inflated forecast for the SJC ALUCP, which necessarily will result in inaccurate and unsupportable noise contours and an expanded AIA for the SJC ALUCP.

The City continues to be concerned about the ALUC’s reliance on inflated forecasts for the 2037 operations at SJC, the ALUC’s discreditation of the forecasts contained in the 2020 Airport Master Plan (AMP) Environmental Impact Report, and the ALUC’s failure to consult with SJC and the City on the forecasts prior to utilizing them for the amended ALUCP (which includes inflated noise contours and AIA).

REQUIREMENTS UNDER STATE LAW
Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a) requires that an ALUCP “shall include and be based either on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics…that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years.” See also, City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cla.App.3d 1277. The relationship between a compatibility plan and an AMP centers on two key pieces of information: the current and future airport layout, and the existing and projected airport activity.

For a compatibility plan to “be based on” an AMP, it must be consistent with the expectations of the airport proprietor with regard to the future development and use of the airport. “An adopted airport master plan is one of the preferred sources for airport activity forecasts and noise contours. Even when the forecasts and contours in a master plan do not extend at least 20 years into the future, information contained about the intended role and future physical characteristics of the airport is needed for compatibility planning.” Caltrans Handbook at 3-7, 3-8. If an AMP is not current or does not extend for the recommended twenty-year planning horizon, a current airport layout plan may be used. ALUCs must obtain written approval from the Division of Aeronautics to use an airport layout plan. Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a). Therefore, if the ALUC is extending the forecasts in the master plan based on the airport layout plan (as required), Division of Aeronautics approval is required. ALUCs must avoid assuming or suggesting that the layout or operation of the airport will change in a manner not anticipated by the entity responsible for the airport’s operations.

In addition to these requirements, Public Utilities Code Section 21675(c) requires formal consultation between ALUCs and affected local jurisdictions when an AIA is established.

Although the statute does not distinguish between establishing and amending an AIA, consultation is strongly recommended when the AIA is amended. Caltrans Handbook at 2-8, 2-9.

Omission of this step can invalidate the adoption of an ALUCP. The statutes do not indicate what is meant by “consultation” however, simple discussions with the staff may not be sufficient.

Rather, ALUCs should afford elected officials of those jurisdictions impacted with the opportunity to meet jointly with the commission to discuss planning boundaries and other compatibility issues. At a minimum, ALUC staff or consultants should offer to make a presentation about the ALUCP to the elected body if the jurisdiction desires.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. 3 The ALUCP redline indicates the ALUC is proposing a revised AIA that relies on a 50% increase to the Airport Master Plan’s 2037 forecasted aircraft operations. The Airport strongly disagrees with the accuracy of this inflated forecast. This inflated forecast is not based on the Airport Master Plan (AMP) forecasts or the airport layout plan and the inflated forecast has not been approved by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, as required by PUC Section 21675(a). In addition, the Airport has not been consulted on the forecasts which the ALUC ultimately utilizes for the increased AIA in violation of PUC Section 21675(c). See Attachment A: Responses to Draft SJC ALUCP, which identifies a number of inaccuracies with the ALUC’s forecast justification.

In order to provide the ALUC with an extended forecast as required by Section 21675(a), which states that a 20-year horizon forecast should be utilized in the ALUCP, the City has worked closely with its technical aviation consultant team at HNTB Corporation (HNTB) in order to project out the AMP forecasts for a 20 year planning horizon (i.e., planned future Airport activity for the year 2043). In preparing the forecast, HNTB determined that operational activity at SJC is tracking very closely with the Master Plan and Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report’s (EIR) Aviation Activity Forecast projections. Despite rapid operational growth between 2017 and 2019 and the subsequent reduction from the pandemic, SJC’s Forecast of operations for 2022 was within 1.1% of the actual volume recorded for Calendar Year (CY) 2022. As evidenced by the actual activity tracking very closely with the long-term growth rates identified in the Master Plan and EIR (as well as an extended pandemic recovery period due to local economic factors), SJC expects operations to continue to grow at its forecast Compound Annual Growth Rate of 2.6% through 2043, resulting in an operational volume of 277,477 operations in CY 2043.

The technical analysis is included as Attachment B to this letter and the City recommends that the ALUC continue consultation with the City to utilize this forecast in the amended ALUCP.

This extended forecast is consistent with the AMP and the airport proprietor’s vision of the airport for the 20-year plan horizon consistent with the requirements of the Public Utilities Code.

RECOMMENDATION
The City requests the ALUC to NOT approve the proposed redline amendment to the SJC ALUCP until the following items are addressed:
 Coordinate with the City, as the airport proprietor of SJC, on a planning forecast for SJC and noise contours for the ALUCP that are based on the horizon year of 2043 (20 years from the preparation of the amended ALUCP).
 Prepare a revised AIA and corresponding IS/ND based upon the 2043 horizon forecast data, generate new noise contours, and consult with the City as required by State law.
 Incorporate the comments and revisions from Attachment A: Responses to Draft SJC ALUCP comments.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. 4 Sincerely,
Jon Calegari
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office
Enclosures (2):

Attachment A: Responses to Draft SJC ALUCP
Attachment B: SJC Forecast Validation
cc: Jacqueline R. Onciano
Leza Mikhail
Samuel Gutierrez
County Counsel
Matthew Friedman, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Attachment A: Responses to Draft SJC ALUCP
The City of San Jose and HNTB Corporation (HNTB) have prepared responses to the draft SJC Airport Land Use Comprehensive Plan (ALUCP). The points are included below (in black), followed by responses and/or recommendations (in blue).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of San Jose International Airport (Cary Greene), the County of Santa Clara Planning Staff (Mark Connolly) and the City of San Jose are also acknowledged with thanks and appreciation.

Response
Please remove Cary Greene, as he was not involved in the changes made to this amendment to the ALUCP.

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The aviation activity forecast for the Airport was updated in 2022 to reflect the existing aviation activity and provide at least a 20-year forecast of activity.

Response
The adopted 2020 Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the Airport’s latest aviation activity forecast.

2.2 Airport Layout Plan Figure 2: Existing Airport Layout Plan Response
Showing only the “Existing Airport Layout Plan” sheet is misleading to the users of the ALUCP.

The ALUCP is required to use a 20-year planning horizon that includes Airport Master Plan demand forecasts, noise contours, and future Airport development. The document must reflect the future development of the Airport, which is contained on SJC’s FAA-approved “Future Airport Layout Plan” sheet dated June 19, 2020. The entire 25 sheet Airport Layout Plan for SJC was provided to County ALUC staff so the appropriate sheets could be included in the amended ALUCP. Additionally, Runway 11/29 will have been closed “officially” by the FAA and Caltrans for well over a year by the time the amended ALUCP is adopted. Including the existing Airport Layout Plan, which still depicts Runway 11/29 as a runway and shows no future airport development has the potential to confuse the users of this document.

An alternative suggestion would be to include both the “Existing Airport Layout Plan” sheet and “Future Airport Layout Plan” sheet in the ALUCP.

2.3 AVIATION ACTIVITY
The aviation activity data is taken from the FAA Form 5010 reports for 2023, and from the San Jose International Airport Master Plan Update adopted April 28, 2020.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Response
The latest aviation activity data is in the 2020 Airport Master Plan EIR. Table 2-1 mixes and matches the data with the 5010 Master Record. This is misrepresentation of the Airport Master Plan data and needs to be corrected.
• Note the 5010 Master Record data is only based data through Nov 2022 and is not representative of the full calendar year for 2022.

Table 2-1
Response
The only information in this table should be from the aviation activity reports from the 2020 Airport Master Plan EIR, not data from the FAA Form 5010.

2.3.2 Aircraft Operations
The number of annual aircraft operations at San Jose International Airport, as presented in Table 2-1, is forecast to increase from a recorded 177,428 operations in the year 2022 to 356,565 operations by the year 2037.

Response
Table 2-1 presents 237,710 operations by the year 2037, not 356,565.

3.3 NOISE RESTRICTION AREA
Reviewed by the U.S. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON 1992) a number of years ago, the accuracy and precision of estimates of the prevalence of a consequential degree of noise-induced annoyance yielded by functions of noise exposure leave much to be desired.

Response
Recommend removing the subjective opinion from this sentence and amend it accordingly.

While the "Schultz Curves" have been commonly used as the measure of annoyance for aviation generated noise, a recent study by the FAA entitled Neighborhood Environmental Study (2022) observed that a significantly higher percentage of people are identified as being highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Thus the reliance on the Schultz Curves likely underestimates the effect of aviation noise on the impacted community.

Response
Suggest adding a note to this statement that the FAA is in the process of reviewing noise policy and impacts in light of the Neighborhood Environmental Study, a process that will take several years.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Land Use Compatibility Standards – California
The 2002 Handbook (see Appendix B herein) urges ALUCs to be conservative when establishing noise contours.

Response
The 2011 California Airport Land Use Handbook is the latest edition and does not include any reference to this statement. This statement should be removed.

Land Use Compatibility Standards – City of San Jose
The Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise in the Environmental Leadership Chapter of the San Jose 2040 General Plan, ch 6, page 55 et seq, Goal ED-1.1, specifies a maximum interior noise quality level limit of 45 DNL and a long-range maximum exterior noise quality level of 55 DNL (equilivalent to CNEL) for schools, hospitals, libraries and auditoriums, and a maximum exterior noise level limit of 60 DNL for residences, hotels, motels, retail and business areas, parks and playgrounds.

Response
Spelling: equivalent
The San Jose 2040 General Plan recommends a maximum exterior noise level of 55 DNL for Public/Quasi-Public uses which include schools, hospitals, libraries and auditoriums and 60 DNL for residential uses and most institutional land uses.

Response
Spelling: institutional

3.3.4 San Jose 2040 General Plan Transportation policy TR-14.4: "Require avigation and “no build” easement dedications, setting forth maximum 6 elevation limits as well as for acceptance of noise or other aircraft related effects, as needed, as a condition of approval of development in the vicinity of airports."
Response
Grammar: Remove “6” in between maximum elevation limits.

3.3.6 San Jose International Airport Noise Contours
Since land use decisions cannot be easily undone after development has been permitted, it is prudent, when significant doubts are present, for the ALUC to be more protective to avoid the potential harms that it is charged with minimizing. This is best achieved by using the most recent data.

Response (HNTB)
Making decisions based on recent data cannot be done without considering how short-term activity trends may return to long term growth patterns as conditions ‘normalize’. While calendar year 2022 traffic activity exceeded 2017 values, it is important to understand the make-up of operations. Passenger air carrier operations in 2022 continue to be below the levels from 2017, DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. signifying that this segment has been slower to recover. There are numerous economic factors local to Silicon Valley that have slowed the growth and recovery of this segment of SJC’s operations, including many of the region’s largest employers offering remote and/or hybrid work and embracing teleconferencing for meetings. On the other hand, itinerant General Aviation operations grew significantly during the pandemic and the growth is now starting to slow in line with long-term growth trends. In summary, it is most prudent to project aviation activity by conducting a thorough review of past historical data, including historical industry disruptions (9/11 and the Great Recession), which is what the Master Plan and EIR forecast was based on.

Details of the forecast used in the master plan can be found in the SJC 2020 EIR, Appendix C, Airport Master Plan Demand Forecast update, dated June 2, 2017. By April 2020, when the San Jose City Council approved the update to the Airport Master Plan, three more years of airport data had become available (2017-2019). Year-over-year growth of operations for those years was 12%, 11%, and 19% respectively – a total of 49% growth during a period for which 9.3% growth would have been expected using the growth rate required for 2016 actuals to reach the 2022 forecast found in Table 10 of Appendix C.

Response (HNTB)
SJC did indeed experience rapid growth between 2017-2019, particularly in the passenger air- carrier segment. During this time, Southwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines rapidly expanded at the Airport in an effort to further establish market dominance within California and in competition with one another. At the same time, several new international airlines began to serve SJC. By late 2018 and into 2019, several of these international airlines had determined that the market was not able to profitably support these services at that time and they began to eliminate or reduce those services (e.g., Air China, Lufthansa, and Aeromexico). Prior to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, international air traffic began to decline on a year-over-year basis (comparing calendar years 2019 and 2018). Domestic activity, while still increasing year-over- year between 2018 and 2019, experienced slowing growth rates, denoting an inflection point in the market’s capability to support the demand created by the competition between Southwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines.

As noted in response to Point #1, the economic considerations influenced by many Silicon Valley employers’ allowance for remote and hybrid work coupled with post-pandemic changes in airline air service decision making suggest that the pre-pandemic growth period between 2017-2019 can no longer be used as a baseline when gauging future air carrier operations at SJC.

The fact that actual operations greatly exceeded the forecast at the very start of the forecast period invites examination of the forecast methodology. Appendix C indicates that the forecast for passenger operations is grounded in the forecast for passenger demand and that domestic passenger demand (the vast majority of passenger demand at SJC) was forecasted using a formula derived from a regression analysis of historical data from 1990-2014. It is worth noting that embedded within this 24-year period is a 12-year period during which operations fell 58% (CAGR -7.0%).1 Over the 24-year period considered, total passengers grew at 1.4% CAGR.

While the prediction formula should not be confused with the data inputs to that formula (mainly forecasts for regional income, average air fares and the U.S. unemployment rate), the ALUC is mindful of the possibility that a formula for predicting growth that is derived from a regression DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. over a long period of modest net growth might understate growth during periods when growth is more robust.

Response (HNTB)
Regression-based forecasting is considered in the aviation industry as the most common type of forecasting for medium- and large-hub airports for Master Plan Updates. The multi-variable analysis completed for the SJC Master Plan and EIR forecast considers the items noted by the County, however, the Forecast also incorporates recovery from major industry disruptions (9/11 and the Great Recession). The discussion in response to Point #2 identifies the rationale for the rapid growth in activity between 2017 and 2019; given market and employment considerations in Silicon Valley, SJC does not expect a return to the rapid growth that occurred between 2017 and 2019. The most prudent approach to estimating future aircraft operations is to evaluate long-term historical trends coupled with an understanding of what airlines and tenants see as their outlook for their business.

The COVID pandemic was in its infancy when the San Jose City Council adopted the master plan update in April 2020, which clouded the growth forecast. Actual data shows that 2022 airport operations were 98.9% of the value forecasted for 2022 in 2017, despite the demand suppressed by the pandemic.

Response (HNTB)
Point #4 made by the County demonstrates the long-term evaluation period of a forecast. When a forecast is prepared, it is not expected that actual activity will track from year-to-year. Rather, the forecast growth rates are intended to be used to project long-term activity to account for fluctuations in events that disrupt and recover activity. The Airport expects growth to continue at historical rates going forward.

The CAGR of operations from 2012-2022 – the most recent decade for which annual data is available – was 3.2%. This is almost double the 1.67% CAGR forecasted for the 2018-2037 planning period in the master plan update. Again, this growth occurred despite the demand suppressed by the pandemic. Increasing the number of operations expected in 2037 by 50% has the following implications:
• The 356,565 operations the ALUC has assumed for 2037 represents 3.1% CAGR in operations from 2019 levels. (2019 was the last full year for which data was available when the update to the Master Plan was adopted.) The ALUC believes this level of demand is consistent with the airport’s current capacity, even without the expansion planned for SJC.

Response (HNTB)
The airline forecasting and network planning community is currently relying heavily on two sources for guidance on airline industry forecast growth rates – the annual Airbus Global Market Forecast and the Boeing Commercial Market Outlook. Airbus has cited

3.6% CAGR through 2041 for world airline traffic, 2-3% CAGR for “mature (traffic) flows” and 2.4% specifically for the US domestic market. Similarly, Boeing has set DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

CAGR globally at 3.8% and North America at 2.6%. SJC expects the airport to continue to grow with the forecast CAGR of 2.6%, consistent with Boeing’s forecast. • This 3.1% CAGR is less than the 3.2% CAGR seen during the decade 2012-2022, which included the pandemic.

Response (HNTB)
As noted in previous responses, the CAGR established for the Master Plan of 2.6%, even with the high growth experienced between 2017 and 2019 and the impacts of the pandemic, has proven to be appropriate for long-term projections. As the County noted, actual 2022 operations were within 98.9% of forecast 2022 operations in the Master Plan/EIR forecast.
• It is reasonable to assume that operations might increase rapidly for the next few years, as demand suppressed by the pandemic recovers. If operations were to reach 2019 levels by the end of 2025, the ALUC’s forecast would be met if SJC operations were to experience

4.6% CAGR during the remainder of the planning period. This is below the 5.9% CAGR of operations for the 2010s and below the 6.8% CAGR of passengers for the 1990s. (Operations data for the 1990s was not found in the sources cited.) Response (HNTB)
Given the aforementioned 2.4-2.6% CAGR currently applied to mature US domestic markets, SJC’s air carrier operational levels could be reasonably expected to reach 2019 levels by 2034-2035. The market conditions that caused the surge in operations and passenger activity between 2017 and 2019 have changed and it is not reasonable to assume that operations will continue at the growth pace experienced over that time period.

The noise curves upon which the revised AIA are based were developed using the same noise modeling data developed by BridgeNet International (2019) referenced in the 2020 AMP update, but with airport operations increased by 50%. These assumptions are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Single-engine piston aircraft were assumed for 100 percent of the local operations but will be insignificant by 2037.

Response (HNTB)
The Forecast included a specific forecast for based aircraft at SJC. As shown in the table below, Forecast of General Aviation Based Aircraft at SJC, the based aircraft forecast for 2037 includes 51 single engine piston aircraft and 8 multi-engine piston aircraft. Given that piston powered- aircraft are likely to make up the vast majority of local operations, SJC recommends including a portion of the local operations as multi-engine piston aircraft (13.6%).

The FAA’s Neighborhood Environmental Survey (NES) provides additional reasons for caution when drawing airport noise contours for land use planning purposes. In perhaps the most comprehensive and rigorous study of community response to airplane noise done in the US for almost 50 years, the NES estimated that 60.1%-70.9% of residents within the 65 dB DNL noise contour were ‘highly annoyed’ by airplane noise at the time of the survey in 2016. This is a stark DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. contrast with the former 12.3% estimate for highly annoyed people within the 65 dB DNL noise contour, which was adopted by the FAA in the 1970s and reaffirmed in 1992. Noise contours based on more protective assumptions provide some cushion for members of the community affected by ALUC decisions that are consistent with NES findings and with the ALUC’s charter.

Response
Please see HNTB’s response below regarding the FAA’s review of existing noise policy. It is premature to change policy based on the NES before FAA’s review is complete.

Response (HNTB)
The FAA has begun considering how the results may influence policy, but there is much effort ahead prior to making any recommendation(s) for policy change as evidenced by FAA’s recent issuance of a Request for Comments on the FAA’s Review of Civil Aviation Noise Policy in the Federal Register [Docket No.: FAA-2023-0855, dated 5/1/2023]. The FAA intends to use comments provided as result of the Federal Register Notice to consider how changes to the civil aviation noise policy may better inform agency decision-making, the types of impacts it considers in making decisions (e.g., community annoyance, certain types of adverse health impacts highly correlated with aviation noise exposure), and potential improvements to how the FAA analyzes, explains, and presents changes in exposure to civil aviation noise. The timeline for this completion of this review and any resulting policy changes is unknown.

3.3.7.1 CNEL Noise Exposure Contours
The Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Version 2d was used to prepare CNEL noise exposure contours for the Airport based on the aircraft noise level and operational factors described in the previous sections. As noted above, the BridgeNet International 2019 data was used with a 50% increase in the number of operations.

Response
As discussed in the attached letter, the City does not concur with the methodology used to prepare noise exposure contours by increasing the 2037 forecasted operations by 50%.

3.5.7 Traffic Pattern Zone
First bullet: The area outside any of the Runway Protection Zones, Inner Safety Zones, Sideline Safety Zones and Outer Safety Zones and inside this boundary and inside the Airport Influence Area is defined as the Traffic Pattern Zone for this runway.

Response
The first bullet point may be removed as ‘this runway’ no longer exists.

3.7 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
The Airport Influence Area for San Jose International Airport (Figure 8) is defined as the area bounded by Saratoga Creek at Tasman Dr to Lick Mill Blvd to Montague Expressway to Orchard Dr to O’Nel Dr to Karina Ct to N 1st St to S 1st St to Monterey Rd to Curtner Rd to Little Orchard St to San Jose Ave to Almaden Rd to Highway 87 to I-280 to Bird Ave to S DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Montgomery St to W San Fernando St to Cahill St to W Santa Clara St to Stockton Ave to Villa Ave to Myrtle St Hedding St to the Railroad tracks to Lafayette St to Walsh Ave to Scott Blvd to San Tomas Expressway to Montague Expressway to Jullette Lane to Mission College Blvd to Saratoga Creek to Tasman Dr.

Response
As discussed in the letter dated 03/14/2023, the City does not concur with the Airport Influence Area drawn around the noise contours derived from the inflated 2037 forecasted operations. The City refers to Attachment B: Technical Memo for a 20-year forecast to horizon year 2043. 8 APPENDIX B
Selected Excerpts
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) Response
Remove all excerpts that do not appear in the October 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
10 APPENDIX D, Analysis of Maximum Operations at SJC
“References:

Amendment to Airport Master Plan, Integrated Final EIR, April 2020 (SJC 2020 EIR) Kimley Horn Associates, RIM Study Technical Memorandum: Updated Airport Capacity and Facility Requirements Analysis, September 2017.

City of San Jose, Updated Airport Facility and Facility Requirements Analysis September 13, 2017
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Capacity Profiles, August 2, 2022
Assumptions:

Dual runway operation
Hours of operation: 6:30am to 11:30pm, (San Jose Code 25.03) & SJC 2020 EIR, Pg 256 • Note that this policy does not apply to those General Aviation operations occurring during the curfew hours.

Airfield operation capacity: 73 operations per hour, Table 3.3-3 SJC 2020 EIR Pg 34 • Average aircraft delay is projected to be 2.0 minutes, Table 3.3-5 SJC 2020 EIR, Pg 34. • Note that other similar airports (PHX and TPA) have 100 operations per hour per runway. See https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/profiles.” Response (HNTB)
SJC’s airfield capacity is constrained by two primary factors. The first is the separation of the runways and the second is the airspace restrictions for departing and arriving the Airport. SJC’s DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. two operational runways, Runways 12L-30R and 12R-30L, are separated by 700’, and therefore are considered dependent because they are ‘closely-spaced’, which means that their centerlines are separated by less than 2,500’. This limits the capability of using both runways at the same time in all weather conditions. During Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), generally when the visibility is greater than 5 miles and the ceiling is greater than 2,500’, the runways can largely be considered independent from a departure and arrival standpoint. Aircraft can depart a runway while another aircraft is on approach or is landing on the other runway. Due to airspace limitations, aircraft can generally not depart at the same time on parallel runways, nor can they typically land simultaneously. When aircraft depart to the northwest, the dominant runway use configuration, they all follow a single departure heading, limiting the capability of using ‘visual separation’ to launch subsequent departures and limiting the benefits of using two runways simultaneously for departure. Therefore, theoretical capacity will be significantly less than other airports that have independent runway separations with multiple runway departure headings (including the referenced PHX and TPA).

According to the referenced FAA website, PHX has a modeled theoretical capacity of 145 combined hourly operations in visual conditions, 109 combined operations in marginal conditions, and 101 combined operations in instrument conditions. These values encompass PHX’s three runways. Similarly, TPA’s airfield can accommodate between 90 and 113 combined operations in an hour (e.g., not per runway as referenced). It is factually incorrect to state that the capacity of each runway is 100 operations at these two airports. “Calculations:

Total max annual airfield operations: 73/hr x 16 hours x 365 days per yr = 426,320 ops SJC forecast of 237,710 ops (Table 3.3-1 SJC 2020 EIR). ALUC uses 356,565 ops or 84% of max over 16 hours. This is also known as Annual Service Volume (ASV).” Response (HNTB)
(NOTE that Table 3.3-1 is not the correct reference. Perhaps Table 3.2-1: Existing and Forecasted Activity Levels at the Airport is intended.) FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and Delay was originally issued on September 23, 1983 and has since been updated twice with published changes. The goal of this AC is to “compute airport capacity and aircraft delay for airport planning and design.” The AC uses Annual Service Volume (ASV) as a representation of airport capacity. ASV is defined as “a reasonable estimate of an airport’s annual capacity. It accounts for differences in runway use, aircraft mix, weather conditions, etc., that would be encountered over a year’s time.” ASV is often used as a planning tool to determine the optimal time to begin planning for capacity enhancing projects (often when actual demand reaches 60% of ASV). The calculations derived in the AC generalize airport operations and do not allow the intricacies of the real world to be reflected in the results (including airport geometry, air traffic constraints, detailed fleet mix considerations, random variables, and other constraints). In the AC, an ASV ratio of 1.0 equates to an average annual day (AAD) delay range of approximately 1.0 minute to 3.5 minutes (reference Figure 2-2 of the AC). This AC does not make a value judgement on the amount of acceptable or optimal delay as it relates to capacity.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

ASV is calculated by multiplying the weighted average hourly capacity by two weighting factors, D and H. The D factor is the ratio of annual demand to average daily demand during the peak month. This factor accounts for seasonal variations in demand. The H factor is the ratio of average daily demand to average peak hour demand during the peak month. This factor accounts for the peaking characteristics within a day. Per Table K.2, Peak Aircraft Operations Activity Forecast, of SJC’s Airport Master Plan Demand Forecast Update, the D factor is calculated as approximately 349 (237,717 annual operations divided by 682 average daily operations during the peak month). Per the same Table K.2, the H factor is calculated as approximately 9.5 (682 average daily operations during the peak month divided by 72 peak hour operations). Table 3-2 of AC 150/5060-5 shows that for an airport with a fleet mix like SJC (mix index greater than 51), the D factor typically ranges approximately between 310 and 350 and the H factor ranges approximately between 11 and 15. Due to the nature of the airport’s peaking characteristics, role in the National Airspace System as an origin-destination airport, and its geographic location on the west coast of the United States, it is unreasonable to assume values that H Factor is on the higher end of the range as Santa Clara County has done.

At an operational volume of 356,565 operations (nearly 50% higher than the calculated ASV), SJC’s airfield would be in constant grid lock. Per AC 150/5060-5’s Figure 2-2, average delay per aircraft operation grows exponentially. As noted previously, a 1.0 demand to ASV ratio relates to an average delay per aircraft range of 1.0 to 3.5 minutes. At a ratio demand to ASV of 1.1, average delay per aircraft increases to between 1.75 and 7 minutes. “Comments:

SJC 2020 EIR (above) on page 34, note 18 says: "Annual Service Volume (ASV) is the maximum number of aircraft operations an airfield can accommodate in a one-year period without excessive delay (emphasis added). ASV does not represent an absolute limit of operational capability of an airfield, but it is indicative of a level of service. Many airports operate above their calculated ASV."
RIM Study Pg 5, last sentence says: " Practical airfield capacity typically only becomes an issue of concern when average delay begins to exceed 4-6 minutes." Current projected average delay is

2.0 minutes (see above). Thus true airfield capacity is clearly above the 426,320 calculated above.

The ALUC believed that the SJC capacity study and the estimated number of annual operations is understating the potential number of annual operations. Neither the City of San Jose nor airport management have identified any constraint or stated policy on limiting the number of operations, beyond those stated in the curfew policy. Thus the ALUC agreed that 1.5 times the SJC estimated year 2037 number of operations was a reasonable alternative, equating to 356,565 operations per year.”
Response (HNTB)
The aviation industry generally considers the maximum capacity of an airfield to coincide with an average delay of 10 minutes per aircraft. Gridlock increasingly occurs and spreads throughout DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. the day when average delays greater than 10 minutes per aircraft are experienced. The following is a brief review of the literature on this topic:

Airport Cooperative Research Program Report 79
According to the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 79: Evaluating Airfield Capacity, the following scale for levels of service was suggested by a Department of Transportation (DOT) report to Congress:
• 4 to 6 minutes of AAD delay per operation
o Limited peak-hour Visual Flight Rules (VFR) delays
o Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) delays in moderate and extreme weather conditions • 6 to 8 minutes of AAD delay per operation
o Increasing VFR delays in peak hours
o Increasing high levels of delays throughout the day in IFR • 8 to 10 minutes of AAD delay per operation
o Delays expand beyond peak hours in VFR
o High delays that can result in some cancellations in IFR • Over 10 minutes of AAD delay per operation
o Delays expand beyond peak hours in VFR in all but optimum conditions o Very high delays in IFR conditions, resulting in significant flight cancellations FAA Airport Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance
In December 1999, the FAA issued their Airport Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance that describes parameters and study elements needed for a compliant Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA). Section

10.4 of that document notes that “average delay per operation of 10 minutes or more may be considered severe. At 20 minutes average delay (approximately the highest recorded average delay per operation known to FAA at an airport in the U.S.), growth in operations at the airport will largely cease. Prior to reaching these levels, airlines would begin to use larger aircraft, adjust schedules, and cancel or consolidate flights during peak delay periods. Passengers would make use of alternative airports, seek other means of transportation (e.g., automobile or train), or simply avoid making some trips.”
ACRP Report 104
ACRP Report 104: Defining and Measuring Aircraft Delay and Airport Capacity Thresholds is a follow on to ACRP Report 79 and contains an extended analysis of airport/airfield capacity. The report states the following: “There tends to be general agreement that when average annual delays per operation exceed 10 minutes, an airport is experiencing severe capacity constraints; and at 20 minutes delay, there is a risk of gridlock.” This agrees with the FAA BCA guidance summarized above. ACRP Report 104 further states that “The delay thresholds that identify capacity or trigger the planning of additional capacity vary because the needs are different at each airport. The triggers vary according to the layout of the airport, taxiway infrastructure, regional airspace serving multiple airports, as well as the typical flight schedule.” The best methodology to ascertaining the demand level associated with the 10 minutes of average delay per aircraft is to conduct a fast-time simulation using software such as AirTOP, Simmod, or TAAM. It is not practical to assume that a 1.5 scale factor of 2037 operations DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. correlates to a capacity threshold for the airport without conducting this analysis nor is it reasonable to assume that this growth could be realized by 2037.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

SJC Aviation Activity Forecast Validation June 2023
1 HNTB
Attachment B: SJC Forecast Validation
Preparer’s Qualifications
HNTB Corporation (HNTB) is a leading infrastructure solutions firm that has been delivering complex airport planning and design projects at airports across the country for over 65 years. HNTB’s key airport planning staff have worked at over 150 airports of all sizes throughout the United States and have completed numerous aviation forecasting studies that project long-term operations and passenger enplanements.

As the preparer of the prior Aviation Activity Forecast included in San José Mineta International Airport’s Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report, HNTB has a thorough understanding of the aviation activity trends at SJC and its peer airports.

This institutional knowledge coupled with the firm’s national depth of experience preparing forecasting studies qualifies the firm to evaluate the applicability of the existing Aviation Activity Forecast.

Forecast Validation and Assessment Through 2043
Summary of Findings
San José Mineta International Airport’s (SJC or the Airport ) operational activity is tracking very closely with the Master Plan and Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report’s (EIR) Aviation Activity Forecast projections. Despite rapid operational growth between 2017 and 2019 and the subsequent reduction from the pandemic, SJC’s Forecast of operations for 2022 was within 1.1% of the actual volume recorded for Calendar Year (CY) 2022. As evidenced by the actual activity tracking very closely with the long-term growth rates identified in the Master Plan and EIR (as well as an extended pand emic recovery period due to local economic factors) , SJC expects operations to continue to grow at its forecast Compound Annual Growth Rate of 2.6% through 2043, resulting in an operational volume of 277,477 operations in CY 2043.

Introduction and Background
SJC’s Airport Master Plan was formally amended in April 2020 with the adoption of the EIR. As part of the EIR, a tailored Aviation Activity Forecast (Forecast) was prepared for the Airport to project aviation demand of aircraft operations, passenger enplanements, and based aircraft through the end of CY 2037.

The adopted Forecast utilizes a regression -based approach to project passenger enplanements and operations demand. Regression is considered in the aviation industry as the most common type of forecasting for medium- and large-hub airports for Master Plan Updates. The multi -variable analysis completed for the SJC Master Plan Amendment and EIR Forecast considers key factors such as historical air transportation activity, regional economi c activity ( catchment area income and employment), historical and forecast air fares, regulatory environment, aircraft manufacturing trends, and aviation fuel prices. The Forecast also incorporates how SJC has previously recovered from major industry disru ptions (e.g., 9/11 and the Great Recession). Figure 1 and Table 1 present a summary of SJC’s aircraft DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

SJC Aviation Activity Forecast Validation June 2023
2 HNTB
operations forecast through 2037. The Forecast projects that SJC’s flight operations will grow at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 2.6% through the forecast period and accommodate 237,717 total aircraft operations in CY 2037.

Figure 1: Summary of Aircraft Operations Forecast
Source: HNTB, SJC Airport Master Plan Demand Forecast Update, 2020, Figure 12.

Table 1: Summary of Aircraft Operations Forecast Through 2037 Year Passenger All-Cargo General
Aviation Military Total
2015 93,256 1,542 33,987 236 129,021
2016 103,280 1,616 33,743 276 138,915
Forecast
2022 126,114 1,730 37,999 250 166,093
2027 142,032 1,826 41,416 250 185,524
2032 156,348 1,882 45,963 250 204,443
2037 183,920 1,964 51,583 250 237,717
Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
2016-2037 2.8% 0.9% 2.0% -0.5% 2.6%
Source: HNTB, SJC Airport Master Plan Demand Forecast Update, 2020, Table 10. 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
Aircraft Operations
Year
Passenger All-Cargo General Aviation Military
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

SJC Aviation Activity Forecast Validation June 2023
3 HNTB
Recent SJC Activity and Economic Factors
SJC’s Forecast utilized a base year of 2015, the last complete CY of data that was available during its preparation. In the years following completion of the Forecast, SJC experienced rapid growth between 2017 and 2019, particularly in the passenger air-carrier segment. During this time, Southwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines rapidly expanded at the Airport in an effort to further establish market dominance within California and in competition with one another. At the same time, several new international airlines began to serve SJC. By late 2018 and into 2019, several of these international airlines had determined that the market was not able to profitably support these services at that time , and they began to eliminate or reduce those services (e.g., Air China, Lufthansa, and Aeromexico). Prior to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020), international air traffic began to decline on a year-over-year basis (comparing CYs 2019 with 2018). Domestic activity, while still increasing ye ar-over-year between 2018 and 2019, experienced slowing growth rates, denoting an inflection point in the market’s capability to support the demand created by the competition between Southwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines.

Like nearly all commercial serv ice airports, SJC experienced a sharp decline in passenger enplanements and operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. SJC’s total aircraft operations experienced a 44.0% reduction in total aircraft operations when comparing CY 2020 with CY 2019. SJC’s r ecovery from the effects of the pandemic have lagged airports in other regions of the country primarily because of California’s more cautious approach to rescinding pandemic -era policies and numerous economic factors local to Silicon Valley that have s lowed the growth and recovery of passenger air carrier operations. Chief among those reasons is Silicon Valley’s early and extended embrace of remote and hybrid work and widespread adoption of teleconferencing for meetings. As a further complication to SJC ’s operational recovery from the pandemic, numerous Silicon Valley technology companies, including some of the area ’s largest employers, have announced mass employee layoffs and other cost-reduction measures such as restrictions on business travel1. Since June 1, 2022, there have been more than 111,000 layoffs in the Tech industry from companies headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area2.

As noted previously, economic data for employment and income are major drivers of air transportation demand. While the United States continues to have record low unemployment rates (3.4% in April 2023) , California had the second highest unemployment rate of any state in the country (4.5%) as of the same time period.

Additionally, the US Labor Department’s statistics showed that average weekly wages within Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties all declined by at least 15% when comparing 2022 with 20213.
1 Levere, Jane. “Business Travel’s Rebound is Being Hit by a Slowing Economy.” The New York Times, November 27, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/27/business/business- travel-economy.html. Accessed June 8, 2023.
2 Lee, Roger. Layoffs.fyi. Accessed June 8, 2023.
3 Rubin, Gabriel and Mai-Duc, Christine. “West Coast States Rode the Tech Boom. Now They Face Higher Unemployment, Falling Wages.” The Wall Street Journal , June 5, 2023, DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

SJC Aviation Activity Forecast Validation June 2023
4 HNTB
Passenger air carrier airlines are also approaching high -frequency business travel differently following significant shifts in customer preference toward “bleisure” travel, the mixing of business and leisure travel. In a Wall Street Journal article published June 5, 2023, the author describe s American Airlines, paradigm shift away from catering towards fre quent business travel. The article notes that business travel “looks to have plateaued at about 20% to 30% below prepandemic levels according to figures from Airlines Reporting Corp…. 4” The article also notes that “an industrywide shortage of pilots and d elays in deliveries of new planes are keeping carriers from adding more flights.”
Figure 2 depicts SJC’s actual operations statistics through CY 2022 compared with the Forecast. Despite the initial rapid growth as discussed above and the subsequent reduction from the pandemic, SJC’s Forecast of Operations is within 1.1% of the actual volume recorded for CY 2022. When a Forecast is prepared, it is not expected that actual activity will track from year -to-year. Rather, the forecast growth rates are intended to be used to project long-term activity to account for fluctuations in events that disrupt and recover activity ( e.g., 9/11, the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 pandemic).

Figure 2: Comparison Between Actual and Forecast Aircraft Operations Source: SJC Statistics and HNTB Analysis, 2023.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/west-coast-states-rode-the-tech-boom-now-they-face-higher- unemployment-falling-wages-83318105. Accessed June 8, 2023. 4 Sider, Allison. “American Airlines Radical Plan to Reinvent Business travel.” The Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/business-travel-american-airlines- d482058b. Accessed June 8, 2023.
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

OPERATIONS
YEAR
Forecast Actual
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

SJC Aviation Activity Forecast Validation June 2023
5 HNTB
Applicability and Extension of Forecast
Even with the volatility in the aviation industry, the Master Plan/EIR Forecast remains a strong predictor of average growth rates through the fo recast period and beyond.

As noted previously, forecasts are not expected to track with actual activity from year-to-year and are instead intended to be used to project long-term activity trends and leverage average growth rates. While some airports have reached or exceeded their pre-pandemic passenger enplanements and aircraft operational volume, SJC’s 2022 aircraft operations volume lags CY 2019 by more than 20%. The FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) predicts a more rapid recovery to 2019 aircraft operat ions volumes than the Forecast shows, however, the TAF does not consider the recent economic factor changes impacting Silicon Valley such as mass layoffs within the Tech industry, repeated interest rate increases, and high inflation. These factors, which are strongly being experienced throughout Silicon Valley in 2023, will likely continue to suppress SJC’s aircraft operational demand recovery rate for the next two-to-three years.

The airline forecasting and network planning community is currently relying heavily on two sources for guidance on airline industry forecast growth rates – the annual Airbus Global Market Forecast and the Boeing Commercial Market Outlook. Airbus has cited 3.6% CAGR through 2041 for world airline traffic, 2-3% CAGR for “mature (traffic) flows” and 2.4% specifically for the US domestic market. Similarly, Boeing has set CAGR globally at 3.8% and North America at 2.6%. SJC expects the airport to continue to grow with the established average forecast CAGR of 2.6%, consistent with Boeing’s forecast for North America. Based on these considerations coupled with the data point that CY 2022 actual operations were within 1.1% of the Forecast’s projections for CY 2022, it is reasonable to consider an exten sion of the Forecast’s CAGR for total operations to a full 20-year forecast horizon from 2023 through 2043.

This extrapolation of the Forecast is presented in Figure 3 and Table 2 and projects a total of 277,477 aircraft operations at SJC in 2043.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

SJC Aviation Activity Forecast Validation June 2023
6 HNTB
Figure 3: Summary of Aircraft Operations Forecast Through 2043 Source: SJC Statistics and HNTB Analysis, 2023.

Table 2: Summary of Aircraft Operations Forecast Through 2043 Year Passenger All-Cargo General
Aviation Military Total
2015 93,256 1,542 33,987 236 129,021
2016 103,280 1,616 33,743 276 138,915
Forecast
2022 126,114 1,730 37,999 250 166,093
2027 142,032 1,826 41,416 250 185,524
2032 156,348 1,882 45,963 250 204,443
2037 183,920 1,964 51,583 250 237,717
2043 217,064 2,072 58,091 250 277,477
Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
2016-2043 2.8% 0.9% 2.0% -0.4% 2.6%
Source: HNTB Analysis and SJC Airport Master Plan Demand Forecast Update, 2020, Table 10. 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

OPERATIONS
YEAR
Forecast Actual
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

AERONAUTICS PROGRAM

DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
P.O. BOX 942873, MS –40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94273 –0001
(916) 6
54-4959
www.dot.ca.gov
March 7, 2024
Carl Hilbrants Electronically Sent <[email protected]> Senior Planner
County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Re: SCH #2024020273 - SJC ALUCP and AIA Amendment
Dear Mr. Hilbrants:

The California Department of Transportation, Caltrans Aeronautics, has reviewed the Negative Declaration Initial Study of the SJC ALUCP and AIA Amendment Project. One of the goals of the California Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) or their equivalent in understanding and complying with the State Aeronautics Act pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21001 et seq. Caltrans encourages collaboration with our partners in the planning process and thanks you for including Caltrans Aeronautics in the review of the Negative Declaration Initial Study.

The State Aeronautics Act stipulates in PUC Section 21675(a), “The commission's airport land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years.”
Caltrans Aeronautics strongly encourages the ALUC to utilize the forecasting provided in the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC) Master Plan of June 2020

6.e
Packet Pg. 146
Governor’s Office of Planning & Research
March 07 2024

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

EXHIBIT C
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

6.e
and the California Airport Land Use Handbook (Handbook).

Section 2.2.6 Airport Master Plans and Airport Layout Plans of the Handbook defines as Airport Master Plan (AMP) as follows:

An AMP is an airport-sponsored, comprehensive planning study that usually describes existing conditions as well as interim and long-term development plans for the airport that will enable it to meet future Attachment: Attachment E-- Caltrans Aeronautics ISND Comment Letter March 7 2024 (119294 : SJC ALUCP and AIA Revisions consideration to ensure the compatibility planning objectives set forth in the State Aeronautics Act DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Packet Pg. 147
March 7, 2024

aviation demand. An AMP contains an FAA-approved activity forecast and an airport layout plan (ALP).
“An airport master plan is a comprehensive study of an airport and usually describes the short-, medium-, and long-term development plans to meet future aviation demand . . . The elements of a master planning process will vary in complexity and level of detail, depending on the size, function, issues, and problems of the individual airport (FAA 2007, p. 1).” The FAA reviews all elements of the AMP to ensure that sound planning techniques have been applied. However, the FAA only approves the following two elements of the AMP: 1) the 20-year forecast of demand and 2) the ALP (PG 2-5).

The Airport Master Plan forecasts SJC operation levels and noise contours through 2037, providing sufficient information to guide the intended role and future physical characteristics of the airport needed for compatibility planning, despite not extending at least 20 years into the future per the Handbook (PG 3-7). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved 20-year forecast and the ALP ensure that sound planning techniques have been applied in the AMP for the airport.

Additionally, the ALUC shall submit to Caltrans Aeronautics one copy of the airport land use compatibility plan and each amendment to the plan per PUC 21675(d).

These comments reflect the areas of review by Caltrans Aeronautics regarding airport- related noise, safety, and land use planning issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Tiffany Martinez
Aviation Planner
Caltrans Aeronautics
c: State Clearing House < [email protected] > Attachment: Attachment E-- Caltrans Aeronautics ISND Comment Letter March 7 2024 (119294 : SJC ALUCP and AIA Revisions consideration Mr. Carl Hilbrants, Senior Planner
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document. “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S. #40
1120 N STREET
P. O. BOX 942874
SACRAMENTO , CA 94274-0001
PHONE (916) 654- 4959
FAX (916) 653- 9531
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Octobe
r 1, 2024
Laura Mau
rer Electronically Sent: [email protected]
Planner, General Plan Team
City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
Re: File No.

GPT24-001, Proposed Text Amendment of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan and the Diridon Station Area Plan including a partial overrule of the Airport Land Use Commission-adopted AIA for San José Mineta International Airport.

Dear Ms. Mau
rer:

One of the g
oals of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) in the development and implementation of policies that protect the safety and general welfare of their communities where aeronautical activities take place. We encourage collaboration with our partners in the planning process and thank the City of San José (City) for including us in the review of the proposed overrule of the Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission.

On Septemb
er 6th, 2024, the Division received an email that included the Draft Resolution declaring an intent to overrule the ALUC’s August 28th, 2024, inconsistency determination for the proposed Envision San José 2040 General Plan Text and Map Amendments (GPT24-001) and Diridon Station Area Plan Specific Plan Amendments including a partial overrule of the Airport Land Use Commission-adopted Airport Influence Area (AIA) for San José Mineta International Airport in response to recent amendments to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for San José Mineta International Airport (SJC).

The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and the Staff Report from the ALUC dated August 28
th, 2024. The Division supports the City’s decision to conduct a partial overrule of the Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission’s adopted noise contours and the resultant AIA identified in the March 27, 2024, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for San Jose Mineta International Airport. This action is based on the finding that the ALUC did not utilize an FAA-approved Airport Master Plan as the basis for the ALUCP update in accordance with Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21675 and Section 2.2.6 of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook), PG 2-5.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

EXHIBIT D
Ms. Laura Maurer, Planner, General Plan Team
October 1, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” In addition to the City’s findings, the justification for the partial overrule is supported by the Handbook, which provides guidance for developing and maintaining an ALUCP. This decision is also informed by the relevant statutes from the PUC Section 21001 et seq., related to the State Aeronautics Act (SAA).

The City
argues the following in support of their decision to overrule:

Finding #1:
“The City is proposing to utilize the noise contours contained within the most recent SJC Airport Master Plan adopted in 2020. Those noise contours are based on aviation activity data accepted by both federal (FAA) and state (Caltrans Aero) agencies with subject matter expertise. This approach is consistent with both the Act and the Handbook, with the latter an adopted Airport Master Plan as “one of the preferred sources” for noise contours.” PUC 2
1675(a) states:

The commission's airport land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years.

The key c
omponents of the 2020 SJC Airport Master Plan (AMP) used for an ALUCP update include an FAA-approved airport layout plan, as well as existing and projected airport operations activity data. According to PUC 21674(e), the commission's powers do not extend to jurisdiction over airport operations. By conducting a separate study that applied a 50% increase to operational numbers for the noise contour analysis used to define the AIA in the March 2024 ALUCP, the ALUC has acted outside the authority granted by the PUC.

The Div
ision recognizes that the City conducted a separate validation study with a notable aviation consultant, HTNB, to ensure that the noise contours of the AMP were reflective and in alignment with actual airport activity data. The study by HTNB confirmed that the AMP activity forecast was closely tracking actual operations activity data. These results confirm that the operations projected in the 2020 AMP are an accurate projection and can be confidently used for airport land use compatibility planning.

Finding #2:
“The City has repeatedly notified the ALUC that its noise contours for SJC are unsubstantiated due to the improper use of an inflation factor for aviation activity growth, and thereby result in the imposition of development restrictions on an overbroad geographic area.

The ALUC has not corrected the identified deficiencies in its noise contours, and has not modified its approach based on detailed input provided by both the City and Caltrans Aero.” The Div
ision agrees that the ALUCP was not developed using the airport operations data from the FAA-approved 2020 AMP. As a result, the AIA defined in the March 2024 ALUCP is inaccurate.

Finding #3: “
The City submitted two letters to the ALUC dated March 14, 2023 and July 5, 2023, representing a dutiful effort by the City to coordinate with the ALUC on its development of the SJC ALUCP, while identifying flaws in the noise contours depicted in the ALUCP and referring DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Ms. Laura Maurer, Planner, General Plan Team
October 1, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” the ALUC to the corresponding accurate data that should have been used to delineate the SJC noise contours in the ALUCP.”
The Div
ision would like to highlight the following points from the PUC and the Handbook:

The Handb
ook identifies the geographic boundary of the ALUCP as the airport influence area.

Per the Handbook, Section 2.2.4 Airport Influence Area, PG 2-4, “ALUCs establish the AIA after a hearing and in consultation with the involved agencies, as required by PUC Section 21675(c). ALUCs sometimes describe the AIA as the referral area (as it is the area within which projects are potentially referred to the ALUC).”
Addit
ionally, Section 2.2.7 of the Handbook, PG 2-8, provides that PUC Section 21675(c) “requires formal consultation between ALUCs and affected local jurisdictions when an AIA is established. Although the statute does not distinguish between establishing and amending an AIA, consultation is strongly recommended when the AIA is amended.” The Div
ision strongly supports collaboration between the City and the ALUC to revise the AIA and noise contours based on an FAA-approved Airport Master Plan, whether it is the 2020 version or an updated one.

In add
ition to these findings, a review by the Division of the Negative Declaration of the SJC ALUCP and AIA Amendment was provided to the County ALUC on March 7th, 2024, strongly encouraging that the ALUC utilize the forecasting provided in the 2020 SJC AMP to ensure mandated compatibility planning objectives set forth in the SAA and the Handbook.

PUC S
ection 21675.1(f) provides: If a city or county overrules the commission pursuant to subdivision(d) with respect to a publicly owned airport that the city or county does not operate, the operator of the airport is not liable for damages to property or personal injury resulting from the city’s or county’s decision to proceed with the action, regulation, or permit.

Purs
uant to PUC Section 21676(a), the Division and ALUC comments shall be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC. If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact Matthew Friedman at [email protected].

Sincer
ely,
Matthew F
riedman
Chief, Office of Aviation Planning
Division of Aeronautics
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Ms. Laura Maurer, Planner, General Plan Team
October 1, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” c: Matthew Friedman, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning, Caltrans, [email protected]
Marlon Flournoy, Acting Division Chief, Division of Aeronautics, Caltrans, [email protected]
Cameron Oakes, Deputy District Director, Caltrans, [email protected] Carl Hilbrants, Senior Planner, County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development, [email protected]
Laurie Suttmeier, Manager, Planning & Programming Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, [email protected]
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.