Re: Coyote Point Update

From: Peter Liu (pyliu@earthlink.net-DeleteThis)
Date: Tue May 25 1999 - 13:49:43 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 AA024565256; Tue, 25 May 1999 13:47:48 -0700
Return-Path: <pyliu@earthlink.net-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 AA219395250; Tue, 25 May 1999 13:47:30 -0700
Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id NAA16921 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 25 May 1999 13:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from earthlink.net (1Cust204.tnt1.sfo3.da.uu.net [153.36.254.204]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21369; Tue, 25 May 1999 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <374B0CE7.7706EBB@earthlink.net-DeleteThis>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:49:43 -0700
From: Peter Liu <pyliu@earthlink.net-DeleteThis>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
To: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Cc: 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, 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, Rod Clevenger <windsurf@accesstoledo.com-DeleteThis>, nancyc@accesstoledo.com-DeleteThis, MaryLynn Hyde <mlhyde@san.rr.com-DeleteThis>
Subject: Re: Coyote Point Update
References: <5f2079f8.247c46c6@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi to all that recives this e-mail: I like to say this for everyone that is a
sailer at
Coyote Point area a BIG Thank You to Peter Thorner,for keeping all of us informed
on this issue!! If anyone likes to help,or have more information,please let
Peter T. or me(Peter Liu) know,by e-mail. Thanks again Peter T.
Later,Peter Liu.

Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis wrote:

> 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