Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 6196-1973 RESOLUTION NO. 6196 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE EXPANSION PLAN FOR SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BY THE SAN FRANCISCO'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco are presently considering the Environ- mental Impact Report for the San Francisco International Airport expansion project and the recommendations of the San Francisco Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco holds the opinion that the expansion project will be beneficial, and that mitigating measures may be taken and planned modifications may be made to meet the recommendations of the San Francisco Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the Council recommend to the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco that the expansion plans for San Francisco Inter- national Airport be approved on condition that the following mitigating measures and proposals be adopted in response to the recommendation of the San Francisco Planning Commission: 1. That the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Expansion Plan for the San Francisco Inter- national Airport be approved by the Board. of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, but Only subject to prior formulation of technically defined plans, based on sUbstantial evidence relative to the physical and financial feasibility of each element affecting the environmental impact of the Expansion Plan,. both direct and indirect,short- term and long-term, individual and collective,together with a technically substantiated definition of the upper and lower limits of the environmental impact, phase by phase, with the requirement that: (a) Where planning is based on the expectancy of improved technology to meet the needs of the future, such planning be supported by technical and legislative evidence adduced to support such expec- tancy; (b) Each projection be based on probative evi- dence adduced from provable facts and trends~ (c) The environmental impact of derivative growth, known to ensue from growth-required develop- ments of facilities such as transportation and utilities be described in provable quantitative terms. 2. The City and County of San Francisco, through its Board of Supervisors, should require the following objectives to be met, which recited objectives are illustrative and not recited for the purpose of limiting the required objectives: (a) Provision of mass-transit and rapid-transit facilities adequate to meet the ground-access requirements of the Airport year by year, from January 1, 1975, through January 1, 1986, without reliance on additional use or storage of private automobiles at the San Francisco International Airport beyond their.respective use of storage thereat on January 1, 1975. (b) Disposal of solid and liquid waste generated according to criteria acceptable to regulating agencies with jurisdiction thereof, and to the adja- cent cities (c) Diminishment of the present air pollution contributed by aircraft during holding or movement on the ground by means such as the following: -2- (c-l) Gate positions adequate to permit .the holding of aircraft with engines shut off at the gate until a takeoff-clearance position is available at the takeoff runway. (c-2) Movement of aircraft or their passengers from the passenger gate to the takeoff runway by means of wheel-propelled vehicles (towing vehicles or mobile lounges.) (c-3) Availability of engine-starting power near the takeoff runway It is evident that all of these improvements are vitally needed for conservation of fossil fuel, as well as air pollution control. (d) Reduction of the aircraft noise exposure throughout the environs of the Airport by means of measures already suggested on the public record by the City of South San Francisco to the Airports Commission, the airlines, and the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as by additional measures yet to be identified and adopted by the Airports Commission and including at least measures such as were propounded by the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles in his speech.reported in Exhibit A attached hereto. 3. That the above-mentioned technically defined and financially supported plan be drafted and completed by the Airports Commission within approximately 60 days from incep- tion of the work. 4. That an Environmental Technical Coordinating Committee be formed promptly, comprising technically and fiscally qualified representatives of the City and County of San Francisco (including, in part, city agencies other than the Airports Commission,) the County of San Mateo, and each of the cities in San Mateo County from the City of San ,. -3- Mateo, northward (but not excluding other cities in San · Mateo County which may desire to participate,) the formation of such Environmental Technical Coordinating Committee to be completed within 30 days. 5. That the said Environmental Technical Coordinat- ing Committee begin to evaluate, criticize and contribute technical and economic advice relative to the said technically defined and financially supported plan following the 60-day period of its formulation by the Airports Commission, and that a final plan representing the commitment thereto by the Airports Commission, be submitted to the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco within 60 days after the inception of the review of the said plan by the said Environmental Technical Coordinating Committee, whereupon the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco would hold a public hearing on the revised Environmental Impact Report. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be filed with the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, and the following addressees together with a request to each of the addressees that they concur in the approval and mitigation measures proposed by this Resolution and communicate same to the Board of Supervi- sors of the City and County of San Francisco prior to any hearing by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco in the matter of the environmental impact report of the expansion of the San Francisco International 1. The Airport Commission of the City and· County of San Francisco. 2. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo -4- 3. The City Council of each city within the County of San Mateo. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of regular meeting , 1973, by the the City of South San Francisco at a held on the 5th day of November following vote: AYES, COUNCILMEN Patrick E. Ahern, William A. Borba, F. Frank Mammini, Terry J. Mirri and Warren Steinkamp I! NOES, None ABSENT, None ATTEST: City C Exhibit A [.",,".,:'iq.._,/~.~~:~ CITIES ADVISED TO IMPOSE OWN AIRPORT NOISE RULES Los Angeles Mayor Thomas Bradley told the annual Airport Operators Council In- ternational meeting in Dallas that effective land use planning legislation "simply must come if we are to have any impact" on the aircraft noise problem. In the absence of effective federal legislation, Bradley said it may be necessary for cities to take the initiative in doing something about noise at airports. "If the federal government has not provided that leadership for effective noise regulations there is no need to wait," Bradley said. Describing the Los Angeles noise reduction program, Br. adley told AOCI members that "if you take · a page out of our book you can save yourself some money, some headaches and some problems." The prol~ram involves the use of preferential runways from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., economic incentives to encourage carriers to use quieter aircraft, a fleet noise rule which would prohibit aircraft from landing at Los Angeles after 1979 if they do not meet Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36, creation of a city noise enforcement division and adoption of stronger land use planning laws. Bradley said th3t if court decisions prevent cities from taking their own measures to reduCe airport noise, the federal government should provide aid to cities such as Los Angeles which are being sued for millions of dollars by noise-impacted residents. He also indicated that such federal aid should not come from charges passed on to the carriers and passengers. "The airlines in this country and around the world simply can't handle it if that's the way we address the problem," Bradley said. Bradley's views on the noise problem are expected to receive considerable attention in the U.S. due to the severity of the ..problem in Los Angeles. His influence is likely to increase in the near future when he becomes president of the National League of Cities in addition to his duties as mayor. AIRPORT NOISE DAMAGE CLAIMS MODIFIED BY JURIES Los Angeles officials now estimate that it could cost under $3.5 billion to settle noise damage suits filed by residents living near Los Angeles International Airport. The figure, a reduction from an earlier estimate of $5 billion, reflects the total amount of potential damages being requested by citizens who claim they have been harmed by aircraft noise. Milton Sherman, Los Angeles assistant city attorney, told The DALLY it now appears unlikely that the city will have to pay the full amount even if it loses the court cases. " The $3.5 biil'ion is approximately the amount of damages being claimed but Sher~nan said that some noise-related condemnation proceedings have resulted in damage awards consid~.rably..less than requested. In one instance, the city appraised some property at $250,000, $619,000 less than the $869,000 being claimed by the property owners. The verdict of the condemnation jury was $350,000, $100,000 greater than the city had offered but $519,000 less than claimed. In another case, owners of four homes re- quested a settlement of $290,000 while the city offered $118,000. The jury decided upon an.award of $127,000, $9,000 more than the city offered but $163,000 less than requested. -- Sherman said there is still the possibility of more suits being filed but most persons likely to become involved are already before the courts with individual or class action suits. Although the problem is still considered serious by the city, Sherman said the settlements are viewed as a favorable trend by juries to reduce over-inflated damage claims. The battle over noise claims in Los Angeles has been going on for several years and is likely to con- t,n,.Je for some time. Of the 38 suits now before the courts, most are before the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Sherman said it is likely that some cases will eventually be carried to the california Supreme Court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. .DAVIS REPLACES RICHERT AS EAL'S ENGINEERING-MAINTENANCE CHIEF Thomas J. Richert resigned as VP-engineering and maintenance of Eastern Air Lines and Frank F. Davis, who has been VP-operational support services, was appointed to that position. EAL Chairman Floyd D. Hall er~phasized that the move was not part of efforts to reduce the company's costs or the number o¢ senior officials. He praised Richert for nine years of "outstanding service" and said "we regret we are not presently ~,ble to offer h~m additional responsibilities in keeping with this experience." Davis, who joined EAL in 1972, had nerved o~ ~enior VP, oporatlon~ and z~ dir~ctor of Pnn American.