CC Min 1996-07-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . I - which is now unbearable, pollution, and additional aircraft noise as aircraft would be forced to fly around the building directly overhead of our complex." She said "this was unacceptable and a 100 feet high building seems reasonable." In response to Council questions, Mrs. Gorman said her sales agent told her about the plans for the - technical school on the EA site. Andrea Steller, 458 Quartz Street, Redwood City, had to leave the meeting and Carol Ford read her letter into the record which is on file in the City Clerk Department. Ms. Steller wrote in part: "Our corporation (Communication Intelligence Corporation in Redwood Shores) is opposed to the Electronic Arts Development.... It will negatively alter our present work environment." Arlene Bates, 32 Admiralty Place, Redwood City, said she and her husband were in favor of Electronic Arts. She said she observed planes taking off at San Carlos Airport and they fly right over BFI, and not the EA site. She asked for further explanation of why people were so concerned about the EA site and not the BFI site. 4) Close public hearing; MIS: LEIPZIGILA BERGE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE AND HEARING CLOSED AT 10:29 P.M. 5) City Council action on the appeal by the Coalition for Compatible Land Use: - Mayor Hartnett asked City Attorney Schricker if anything Mr. Jay White had said about the EIR at this meeting, "changed your advise to us previously given with respect to whether or not we have followed the proper procedures with respect to the Environmental Impact Report, the amendment thereto, and the public process in connection with it. City Attorney Schricker said "No." Mayor Hartnett asked Mr. McClintock, the author of the safety study, the City of Redwood City is your client, not Electronic Arts, is that correct?" Mr. McClintock, said "That is correct, Mr. Mayor." In response to further questions from Mayor Hartnett, Mr. McClintock said he had not "heard anything in the testimony that's been given and in the written correspondence that would cause me to change my findings and the conclusion of my report....emphatically no." In response to Councilman Ruskin's questions, Mr. McClintock said "the fact that the 151 feet high building does not penetrate the FAR 77 horizontal surface is one thing, but your question is if it was one foot higher or sufficient to penetrate that would it change anything, would it represent a hazard as a result of that....the answer is that Number one, if an object or a structure penetrates any of those FAR 77 surfaces it becomes what it is considered an obstruction by the FAA, and then they do a further analysis to determine if that obstruction would be a hazard,....then they go one step - further and determine if it would be a significant hazard. The determination of REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JULY 15. 1996 MINUTES MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 PAGE 20 Page No. 392