CC Min 1996-07-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

significant hazard that really represents a problem in the eyes of the FAA in regard to those surfaces. In response to your question, a foot one way or another, or twenty feet one way or another would not make any difference....The Adobe building in San Jose that penetrates one of the FAR 77' s surfaces by 90 feet, certainly an obstruction, but was determined not to be an hazard upon the part of the FAA." Mr. McClintock addressed the relevance of the comparisons between John Wayne Airport and San Carlos Airport, and the said "the issue was immaterial because the discussion is aircraft operating in and around the 151 feet above the ground level, and the height of the airspace even though it is a constraint, is not really the issue." In response to the Vice Mayor Howard's questions regarding the GPS Approach permit, Mr. McClintock said GPS is "the installation of the Global Positioning Satellite which as you heard testimony would offer a non-precision instrument approach. Given the proximity of the San Francisco Class B airspace which is the limiting airspace in the vicinity of San Carlos, it is quite likely that that approach would be to Runway 30 as opposed to Runway 12.... It would be coming in from the southeast, in a take-off direction northwest....Over 2 years ago P&D studied the possibility of getting a GPS approach into San Carlos Airport....from a purely airspace perspective the 151 feet high Electronic Arts building or any of the EA buildings in their proposed locations would not preclude or preempt the establishment of a GPS Approach to Runway 30 as San Carlos. If there is anything that would preempt that it is factors other than this proposed project. And I can say that as probably the only person in this room who's sat with somebody qualified to install such an approach and actually did the layout of such an approach, and that is a matter of public record." In response to Mayor Hartnett's statement that the extension of Shoreline Drive was not a request by Electronic Arts, but the City is requiring it as part of the project if approved, Director Passanisi said, "That is correct." In further response, Director Passanisi said the Shoreline extension "has been in the GID list of projects since 1989 or 1990." Mr. Passanisi said that staff felt the extension would ease traffic for all residents and businesses in that area. Mayor Hartnett said that it was his understanding from the traffic study, there are certain current levels of traffic impacts, and "if the (EA) project is built as proposed, and the mitigation is done that is proposed to be done, that the traffic impacts that would be generated specifically from this project will be in effect completely mitigated." Director Passanisi, said "not completely mitigated, but there would certainly be mitigations to more acceptable levels," and would significantly reduce the potential impacts from the project itself. Mayor Hartnett said the EA "project itself is not going to directly support the auxiliary lane project that has already been approved for funding through the San Mateo County Transit Authority, but that with those improvements through the auxiliary lanes, the bottleneck that occurs on 101 irrespective of whether or not EA is built, there will be some mitigation of that as a result of the auxiliary lane project that's been approved. Mr. Passanisi, said "Right, there will be some mitigation." REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JULY 15, 1996 MINUTES MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 PAGE 21 Page No. 393