Re: Coyote Threat

From: Chris Rowe (hangtime@elnino.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Fri Apr 23 1999 - 11:40:26 PDT

Next message: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "Re: Coyote Threat"
Previous message: Ken Poulton: "Thu at 3rd"
Next in thread: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "Re: Coyote Threat"
Maybe reply: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "Re: Coyote Threat"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

From: "Chris Rowe" <hangtime@elnino.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis>
Message-Id: <9904231140.ZM25161@elnino.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:40:26 -0700
In-Reply-To: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis "Any want to meet re Coyote Sat/Sunday" (Apr 22,  2:56pm)
References: <eacf8c8c.2450ef2a@aol.com-DeleteThis>
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: Coyote Threat
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

With regards to the threat to Coyote point, I do think that it is important
that we look at the arguments as to why the EIR is inaccurate, and why we feel
that our needs are not being addressed. However, if the city council doesn't
care about windsurfing, then no amount of arguing the technical aspects of the
wind study is going to help us, so perhaps we could use an alternate tact.

Have any windsurfers tried pushing other problems with the building site? For
example, plenty of local businesses will be upset by the traffic problem. In
that area, we could have allies who are revenue-generating businesses rather
than windsurfing passers-through.

Or a legalistic approach: There must be a bunch of good reasons not to put
super-tall buildings there, otherwise the existing laws and regulations would
not prohibit them. My understanding is that this project would be an exception
to current law. Then perhaps we could target letters and correspondence to the
letter of the law, and argue legalistically why these buildings shouldn't go up
rather than arguing subjectively why we wouldn't like it. Instead of looking
at why the EIR is wrong, figure out why the laws against these buildings were
written in the first place and argue those points. When the regulation that
limits buildings in that area to 55' (or however high) and land coverage to 25%
(as I recall), the legistlators of that law must have had good reasons. If
those are still valid reasons, then maybe we should take that stance. Since
this project wants massive exceptions, there are already lots of good arguments
against it, and the windsurfing problem could just be what motivates us to
argue those other points rather than using windsurfing as our only argument.

I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps someone has gone through this already. I'd just
like to hear why we are specifically targeting the technical fairness of the
EIR. It seems to me that if the city council doesn't care about windsurfers,
then it doesn't matter if the EIR is unfair to windsurfers, so I'd rather not
make a trek to another City Council meeting if that's our only tactic.

flames welcome,
Chris.

-- 
Chris Rowe
sgi Product Design 
650-933-8732
-----------------------

Next message: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "Re: Coyote Threat"
Previous message: Ken Poulton: "Thu at 3rd"
Next in thread: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "Re: Coyote Threat"
Maybe reply: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "Re: Coyote Threat"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:17 PST