Res96 12819 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3.1.2 P. ltttnlllll.F.,tI~:. The Project could be incompatible with the San Carlos Airport, which is located approximately one-third mile south of the Project site. F_illflJll~: The City hereby makes finding (1). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The Project is eonsistent with the City's General Plan, which is consistent with the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan ("CLUP"). The CLUP is a comtarelae~ive land use plan that wa_q enacted in order to ensure compatible land use in the areas surrounding airports. (b) Although there is no formal requirement that the Project be submitted to the County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") for review, the City nonetheless afforded the ALUC the opportunity to review and comment on the project at a special meeting of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ALUC on November 16, 1995. The City has carefully considered the comments made at that meeting, as well as the responses and other data contained in the Airport Land Use and Safety Study ("Airport Study") prepared for the Project. The comments, and the City's conclusions regarding the issues raised in these comments, are discussed in Section 3.10 of these Findings. (c) The CLUP establishes a maximum height for structures in the Project area of 152 feet. No structure in the Project will exceed 152 feet in height. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the CLUP height requirements. (d) The Airport Study concludes that "[t]he proposed Project would be compatible with the safe and efficient operation of San Carlos Airport within the range of allowable airport operating conditions and existing noise, safety, airspace protection, or overflight criteria. It would not subject people or property on the ground to undue or excessive risk from potential aircraft accidents or noise, nor would it pose a demonstrated risk to the safety of alrcrafl in flight." The evidence contained in the Airport Study supports this conclusion. (e) Some pilots and others associated with the San Carlos Airport disputed these conclusions, based on their experience. The City Council carefully considered all of this evidence, written and oral, before voting on the Project. The City Council also considered testimony by other experienced pilots who stated that the Project would not constitute a hazard to aviation. (f) The Airport Study was reviewed by Arthur Negrette from the Flight Safety Institute on behalf of the Project applicant. Mr. Negrette, who is a pilot, was formerly a flight instructor at San Carlos Airport and is an accredited airport executive with a great deal of experience in airport planning. Mr. Negrette testified that the Airport Study is "one of the most comprehensive and detailed safety studies that we've seen of -12- £AFNDCJC¢.DOC 7/11/96 9:56 AM