Coyote Point Update

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Date: Tue May 25 1999 - 11:32:38 PDT


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA283787466; Tue, 25 May 1999 11:38:55 -0700
Return-Path: <Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA128687457; Tue, 25 May 1999 11:37:37 -0700
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id LAA09713 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 25 May 1999 11:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis (14451) by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 1GKHa02573; Tue, 25 May 1999 14:33:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <5f2079f8.247c46c6@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 14:32:38 EDT
Subject: Coyote Point Update
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis, atomic1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis, harris@synopsys.com-DeleteThis, bob@quake.net-DeleteThis, geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, Randyboz@aol.com-DeleteThis, karinaoc@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, Robberson.Bill@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, harris4life@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, CoyoteSurf@aol.com-DeleteThis, bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis, TFeldstein@grmslaw.com-DeleteThis, mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis, lbauman@fostercity.org-DeleteThis, jrunge@netcom.com-DeleteThis, jmcgrath@portoakland.com-DeleteThis, lstanley@stanleyrose.com-DeleteThis, ErikRog@aol.com-DeleteThis, pyliu@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, buck@velaresorts.com-DeleteThis, RedKen2@aol.com-DeleteThis, WindyYet@aol.com-DeleteThis, AIRBOYD1@aol.com-DeleteThis, david@windcall.com-DeleteThis, cort@larnedwindsurf.com-DeleteThis, USWA@aol.com-DeleteThis, windsurf@accesstoledo.com-DeleteThis (Rod Clevenger), nancyc@accesstoledo.com-DeleteThis, mlhyde@san.rr.com-DeleteThis (MaryLynn Hyde)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214

The Burlingame Planning Commission considered the development near Coyote
Point (301 Airport Boulevard) as a "Study Item" last night. They did not take
any comment from the public or the developer. On a study item, they
essentially express concerns and make requests for additional information
from the developer and City Planner who are then expected to respond to those
requests. The next meeting is on the project is conditionally set for JUNE
14th, depending upon whether or not the developer has responded sufficiently
in time for that meeting date to be viable. Once the Commission is satisfied
that they have the information and the alternatives they want, they will move
forward with the approval process and public comment will be important.

The San Francisco Boardsailing Association has received strong support from
non-profit organization Save The Bay (see www.savesfbay.org). They are
planning a grass roots letter writing campaign and have provided legal
guidance which should allow us to intelligently deal with the failings of the
environmental impact report/CEQA process. This is a great time for us all to
consider the environmental as well as the recreational needs associated with
the Bay and the possibilities that cooperation between like-minded
organizations offers. Save The Bay is already making great efforts to bring
information about the SFO runway expansion plans into the public eye.

The following is a summary of what the Commissioners asked/expressed (in the
speaking order) :

Commissioner Dreiling wanted an explanation of why so many exception were
neccesary for the project. He expressed concern about the project having
being automobile oriented with all of its' density concentrated in the middle
of the property amid a "sea of parking." He mentioned that this has impacts
on the wind.

Commissioner Ann Keighran indicated that she would like to see the buildings
within the area height limit and she indicated that she was very concerned
about the density of the project. She indicated that she would like to see
the grouping of buildings reversed so that the group of three buildings is
farther from the Coyote Point sailing area and the group of two buildings is
nearer Coyote Point. She also requested information on the size of the drive
in screens.

Commissioner Stanley Vistica said he felt that the project was too big for
the infrastructure. He said he would like to see a reduced alternative which
respected the exisiting limits on height, lot coverage, and view corridors.
He noted that the developer had been blind-sided by the windsurfing issue and
that he would like to see the developer take some time to address the wind
issues.

Commissioner Jerry Lee Deal said he shared Keighran and Vistica's concerns.
He asked that the developer further examine view impacts and that the
developer address San Francisco Boardsailing Association concerns. He asked
for an explanation of why the project was so tall. He said he would like to
see plans including rotation of buildings to reduce wind impacts, elimination
of the building closest to the bulkhead nearest Coyote Point, and shifting of
taller buildings to the west side of the site. He asked if new plans would go
to the wind tunnel and was advised by City Planner Meg Monroe that new plans
would be reviewed by the expert.

Commisioner Joseph Bojués said that he echoed comments of those who preceded
him. He said he wanted a stronger rational for the deviations from the area
plan. He indicated that he would like to see the project scaled back. He
indicated that he also specifically echoed other comments as they regarded
layout.

Commissioner David Luzuriaga wanted an explanation of why so many exceptions
were necessary. He wanted to see comparisons of wind impact between the site
with movie screens included and the site under proposed project conditions.
He said he was disappointed in the architecture and wondered why the
rendering/elevation he had obtained from CB Richard Ellis (commercial
brokerage hoping to lease the new office space) differed from those submitted
to the City.

Commissioner (Chair) Michael Coffey noted that the project was meeting
minimum parking requirements while "maxing out" the size/floor area. He also
said he was concerned about traffic issues including those traffic impact
which will be felt in the City of San Mateo. He suggested that the City of
San Mateo should be invited to submit further information as to what impacts
they expect.

- Peter Thorner



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:33 PST