CC Min 1996-07-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . I . - sense that's true. But the FAA's approval by its very nature has created more confusion throughout the state, and in fact the whole country, than perhaps any other federal document. Because what it does is it makes a referral to a model, FAR Part 77, - which is an imaginary surface that is used for determining, for planning. It is the same model that is used back in the flatlands of Iowa, the Rocky Mountains, at Aspen Airport, or in San Carlos. It is a starting place, but it does not answer all the questions that need to be answered regarding safety. The front page of the document.....states 'The proposed construction is not identified as an obstruction under any standard or FAR Part 77, and would not be a hazard to navigation.' But what it doesn't tell you on the front page it tells you two pages over is that, Part 77 is not the key regulation that is involved here. Because it speaks of special visual operations under Regulation Part 9 I. Part 91 is the so called rules of the road for pilots which determines the altitudes they fly, how they approach the airport, and how they land. And that special Regulation applies any time the visibility is lower than I mile or the cloud ceiling is lower than 100 feet. According to the consultant's report, 37% of the time at San Carlos Airport, those conditions prevail. The significance is that under these special visual rules, the pilots come in low over the Electronic Arts area and any increase in buildings above what is there now would decrease the safety margin, and possibly create a collision hazard." Mr. White summed up by saying the Council should have a copy of the cover page of the 1974 Environmental Impact Report which states the study "considers the important impacts associated with general types of development. It should be noted that detailed EIRs will be required for all major projects once specific plans are proposed." - John Carey, 703 South B, San Mateo, Business Representative of the Sheet Metal workers Local 104, said he represented hundreds of members who reside in Redwood City. Mr. Carey said his membership was 100% in favor of the Electronic Arts project, and said they believe it represents tremendous opportunities for employment and encouraged the Council to go forward with the development. Robert Slusser, 541 Cringle, Redwood City, said he was not in opposition to the project but had several concerns about the development agreement. Mr. Slusser said, as a member of the original General Improvement District I -64 Advisory Committee that helped formulate the facilities fee program, "I disagree with the findings of the Facilities Fees Committee that the extension to Shoreline Drive is a District responsibility, and that some of the wording in the development agreement calls it a 'long needed improvement' that will greatly improve the traffic circulation. In my personal opinion....this is an in-tract improvement not much different than what occurred with Oracle and with what was approved for Parkwood, and as such is not a District requirement." Mr. Slusser said he is still concerned about "the fixing of the facilities fee amounts over a period of time and a development agreement that under the guise of flexibility (allows) the developer to build at an undetermined rate." Mr. Slusser asked the Council to be cognizant of what the benefits of the project are and '-- - - -- --- -- - -- -- - -- _m- --- --- -- - -- - -- - -- - _m- ---- - -- - --- - --- __m_- - -- - --- - --- - --- - -- - _m -- - -- - --- - -- - -- --- -- - -- - _mm- -- - -- -- - -- -- - _m--- REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 1996 MINUTES PAGE 24 MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Page No. 366