RE: Coyote Threat

From: Stephen Hiley (SHiley@WSGC.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Fri Apr 23 1999 - 14:16:33 PDT

Next message: Lev Belov: "RE: more on Windsight"
Previous message: Mike Cummins: "more on Windsight"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Message-Id: <294B00DB40B2D0119AA900A02461F56703D6F28B@SFEXSVR1>
From: Stephen Hiley <SHiley@WSGC.com-DeleteThis>
To: "'wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis'" <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>
Subject: RE: Coyote Threat
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:16:33 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

As Peter mentioned, this is largely a political process, and the city is, by
demonstration of the granting of such drastic variances, is eager to bring
business and revenue to its district. I think both opinions below have
value. We do want to find a way to limit or eliminate the variances
granted, and the way we may succeed in arguing this case is through the
environmental impact.

Listening to the closing comments of one of the planners in the last
meeting, it sounded like they were not clear of our intentions in being
there. One planner said something like, "Why are you bringing this to us?
We are just the planning committee, and this land is zoned for commercial
use. So what do you expect us to do?" From those comments, I got the
feeling that they did not feel it was their responsibility to consider our
interests at all. After all, what's some lost wind amount to for a city
planner when compared to the gains for the city -- attractive redevelopment
and $$$.

I think it is important that we do not provide the impression that we are
opposed to development all together, as this is not something that would be
considered seriously at all. Instead, make clear that we acknowledge the
developer's rights to build, but would very much like to minimize the extent
that this development impacts the surrounding area (if this is the case).
I think right now, we are being perceived as an annoyance, and what we need
is to show that we are willing to compromise and allow the city to meet its
goals without giving away too much to the developers!

If the wind and parking issues are ignored by the council and the EIR is
pushed through, then yes, lets look at the next best way to reign this
project in. Until then, lets continue to support the efforts underway.

> ----------
> From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis[SMTP:Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis]
> Reply To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 1999 1:31 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: Coyote Threat
>
> > hangtime@elnino.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis (Chris Rowe)
>
>
> > 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.
>
> There will likely be numerous parties commenting on traffic so it may make
>
> sense to stick to windsurfing generally because I think there is a clear
> case
> that the Response did not deal with key issues like including turbulence
> as
> an element in the impact standard. The hearing on 4/26 is procedural in
> nature. The commisioners will want to hear specific comments regarding the
>
> EIR, not general statrements of support.
>
> > 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.
>
> The project exceeds limits set out by the city in an area plan. The
> Planning
> Commission does have the power to allow an exception. The question of
> whther
> it is allowed is political versus procedural... opinioins and numbers of
> people may make a difference when it comes to this. The vote regarding a
> variance/exception will likely be in a month or so if the EIR has been
> ceritifed.
>
> > 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
>
> The EIR concluded (unfairly in my opinion) that there will be no
> significant
> impact to windsurfing. By sticking with the extreme finding of no
> significant
> impact, the consultant/City does not have to put forward any alternative
> development plans (like maybe on that bides by com munity plan limits on
> height and coverage and which shifts tall buildings to the upwind side of
> the
> property). If a significant impact was shown both alternatives and
> mitigation
> would be due under the California Environmental Quality Act.
>
> In the very near term, we need to contest what looks like an abuse of the
> CEQA process. We also need to start ramping up for a political/community
> based plea to the Planning Commissioners and maybe even the City Council.
> Whether or not the EIR finds significant impact, the Planning Commission
> has
> the power to make project happen or not. In the case that the EIR shows
> significant impact, there must be mitigation.
>
> Peter
>
>
>

Next message: Lev Belov: "RE: more on Windsight"
Previous message: Mike Cummins: "more on Windsight"
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