Background
Airport staff is seeking the approval of the City Council to modify certain design concepts and to "swap" the uses of certain garages contained within the 1997 Airport Master Plan. Council concurrence in the proposed modifications is necessary before additional resources are expended in doing further design work. Airport staff is conducting an iterative design process to refine the various complex roadway and terminal design elements prior to seeking authority from the City Council to proceed with the construction of a centralized terminal facility. This "design refinement" is a normal part of the architectural planning process for a large public works project such as the 1997 Airport Master Plan. Indeed, additional Council review of the design work as it progresses is anticipated.
At the time that the City Council approved the 1997 Airport Master Plan, direction was given to draft an ordinance that specified the limitations, phasing, and prerequisites for implementation of the projects under the Plan. The City Council adopted the "Implementation Ordinance" (Ordinance No. 25528) in March of 1998, and Part 3 of Chapter 25.04 of the Municipal Code now contains the limitations and conditions for development of terminal facilities. A copy of Part 3, as it was adopted, is attached to this memorandum.
This memorandum is provided to clarify for the City Council the Municipal Code provisions regarding what information and environmental analysis must be provided to the Mayor and Council at the time Council approves minor amendments to the Airport Master Plan, particularly those related to design refinements.
Discussion
1.
Municipal Code
Provisions
In Part 3 of the Municipal Code, the limitations on projects are generally set forth as conditions that must be met before construction of terminal facilities can begin. Examples from relevant sections are set forth below:
"Construction and development of all Airport facilities shall be limited by and developed in accordance with the levels of development and facility plans set forth in the 1997 Airport Master Plan." Section 25.04.300(A).
"Any construction of a new Terminal B or the addition of air carrier gates in existing terminal buildings beyond thirty one (31) air carrier gates shall not proceed until the year 2000 or beyond…." Section 25.04.310(A).
"Any construction and remodeling of terminal buildings shall be phased…. so as not to have more than forty (40) air carrier gates in the terminal buildings at the Airport at any one time." Section 25.04.300(C).
"No construction contract shall be awarded for any terminal building or parking garage, or west side cargo development shall be awarded until the Route 87 improvement project is under construction." Section 25.04.330(B).
"The City shall not award…a construction contract for the development of, a new terminal building…until an all Stage 3 transport category commercial fleet actually operates at the Airport." Section 25.04.330(C).
"No contract for the construction of a new terminal, west side cargo or general aviation facilities shall be awarded without additional environmental analysis, if the updated review and information indicate that circumstances have materially changed from the analyses and forecasts provided in the 1997 Airport Master Plan and related environmental analysis." Section 25.04.330(D)(3).
These conditions to the construction of a new terminal do not apply to the planning and design process. Staff is not seeking authority to construct the facility, but authority to proceed with design based upon some minor modifications to the layout of facilities that are wholly contemplated by and contained in the 1997 Airport Master Plan.
2. Forecasts and Recent Activity Levels at the Airport
The 1997 Airport Master Plan and EIR contain certain projections of demand to the horizon year of 2010. The Airport Master Plan is a long term planning document, and year-to-year fluctuations in the long-term trend of growth are expected to occur, and have occurred. Such variations do not change the "bricks-and-mortar" project that was analyzed in the EIR/EIS. The design concepts presently before the Council do not raise any new significant environmental issues.
For example, during the month of August, SJC had a daily
average of 478 commercial airline operations.
Airport Noise Control staff, at our request, hand-counted operations on
November 1st (selected as a sample day). As of that day, the Airport
had a total of 337 commercial airline operations, a decrease on the order of
30% from the August average. A monthly
daily average for October is not yet available.
For the month of September 2001 only, the Airport's passenger total decreased 32% from September 2000, and commercial airline operations fell 15%. Just as passenger traffic at the Airport has grown over the past decade without regard to whether terminal facilities had been expanded to accommodate it, passenger traffic during economic downturns or national crises can dramatically decrease without regard to the physical facilities that are available to handle the traffic.
Forecasts of long-term future activity levels at an airport are always based on growth trends, and they do not attempt to forecast precisely activity levels from year-to-year. In other words, while forecasts usually show straight-line growth trends, the reality from year-to-year is that activity levels will fluctuate and below any trend line, because activity levels are determined principally by macro-economic effects in the national and local economies which cannot be precisely forecast.
Although the Airport is still in the process of gathering and analyzing passenger levels for October, it may be that for some months to come, the Airport remains below activity levels as compared to the same month from the previous year. The fact that some variation occurs over time does not mean that it is material or that the environmental analysis must be redone.
3. Environmental Review
In accordance with CEQA, the City has reviewed the 1997
Airport Master Plan EIR in conjunction with the proposed actions to determine
the consistency of the proposed actions with the environmental analysis
contained in the EIR. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) recognizes that between the date projects are
approved and the date(s) they are constructed one or more of the following changes
may occur: 1) the scope of the project may change, 2) the environmental setting
in which the project is located may change, 3) certain environmental laws,
regulations, or policies may change, and 4) previously unknown information can
come to light. CEQA requires that lead
agencies evaluate these changes to determine whether they would cause any
previously unidentified significant project impacts or would make identified
impacts substantially more significant than originally predicted. One mechanism for assessing the significance
of these changes under CEQA is called an Addendum [CEQA Guidelines Section
15164].
Generally, if project
changes would or could significantly affect the prior conclusions regarding
significant environmental effects of the previously adopted project, further
environmental review (e.g., a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact
Report [EIR]) would be warranted. If
the changes do not raise any significant environmental issues, an Addendum is
prepared to document those changes, including any changes to the project.
An Addendum to the EIR has been prepared by David Powers and Associates, and reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA and states in part:
"This
Addendum addresses certain minor changes to the design of the Airport Master Plan Update project for
the San Jose International Airport (SJC) originally approved by the City
Council on June 10, 1997. The specific
design changes proposed and considered in this Addendum are described in
Section 3 of this Addendum. None of
these changes would be expected to create or cause any new or more significant
environmental impacts beyond those described in the original project EIR." Addendum p. 3
The proposed design modifications all fall within the
“footprint” and parameters of analysis of passenger facilities in the Airport
Master Plan and in the EIR. There is
nothing in these modifications, in and of themselves, which would have any significant environmental impacts not
previously disclosed in the Final EIR, nor will there be a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant environmental
impacts. Therefore, no subsequent or
supplemental EIR is warranted or required.
Conclusion
It is consistent with
the Municipal Code and with applicable state and federal environmental laws for
the Council to adopt the proposed Minor Amendment to the Master Plan, to amend
the Municipal Code as proposed, and to give staff direction to proceed with
further design work and to report back.
|
|
Richard Doyle City Attorney |
|
|
By:______________________________ Evet S. Loewen Chief Deputy City Attorney |