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 AA270577284; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:49:28 -0700 Return-Path: <OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-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 AA179097278; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:47:58 -0700 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id LAA17053 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:47:56 -0700 (PDT) From: OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis Received: from myrtle.rtpnc.epa.gov by epamail.epa.gov (PMDF V5.1-12 #26439) with ESMTP id <0FDQ00644RF6AF@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis> for wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EPAHUB2.RTP.EPA.GOV by epamail.epa.gov (PMDF V5.1-12 #26438) with SMTP id <0FDQ00LEMRC37A@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis> for wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:30:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by EPAHUB2.RTP.EPA.GOV(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 hotfix 1 (767.1 12-15-1998)) id 85256798.006556AC ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:26:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:15:20 -0700 Subject: Re: Coyote Point: No Appeal By Developer To: mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis Cc: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis, 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, 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, carlyle@savesfbay.org-DeleteThis, MStokowski@quadramed.com-DeleteThis, jameslord@pacbell.net-DeleteThis, cathyb@baylock.com-DeleteThis, cems1@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, USWA@aol.com-DeleteThis, windsurf@accesstoledo.com-DeleteThis, nancyc@accesstoledo.com-DeleteThis, mlhyde@san.rr.com-DeleteThis Cc: wilsonmar@sfgate.com-DeleteThis, modell-estep@winterland.com-DeleteThis, dunkster@earthlink.com-DeleteThis, russell_ford@cygn.com-DeleteThis, xlrn@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, Guiliano.Dave@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, Irwin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, jleipner@co.santa-barbara.ca.us-DeleteThis, lilientp@tcplink.nrel.gov-DeleteThis, msides@harding.com-DeleteThis, scott@inet-sciences.com-DeleteThis, dan_weller@yahoo.com-DeleteThis Message-Id: <85256798.0064875B.00@EPAHUB2.RTP.EPA.GOV-DeleteThis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Lotus-Fromdomain: EPA
Woohoo! -- We couldn't have gotten a better result! The public spoke and the
Planning Commissioners actually listened.
Peter -- home run! -- I am really pleased that the commissioners
understood the message -- I was worried that it might spiral into a debate
among technical experts. I think the technical material was clear,
distilled, understandable, and without dispute from the other
side......mark.
>I have just talked with the Burlingame City Clerk and have been advised that
>the developer for the property upwind of Coyote Point Park, 301 Airport
>Boulevard, has not filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's 7-0 denial of
>his project. The developer can come back with a revised project, but if he is
>realistic, he needs to respond to the Commissioner's concerns expressed on
>6/14 when they denied the project. Comments by the Commissioner's indicated
>they would like to see the project at a maximum or 3-4 stories (vs. proposal
>of up to 7 stories) with enforcement of the 65' height limit (vs. prososal of
>over 100'), floor area of around 2/3 or less than proposed, and a design that
>minimizes impacts on the wind.
>
>The majority of the commissioners indicated that they expected wind impacts
>from the development and that they had doubts about the EIR that they had
>previously found sufficent (with Vistica and Dreiling opposing):
>
>Commissioner David Luzuriaga stated that it was clear in his mind that wind
>impacts would be significant and that simply moving floors around would not
>solve the problem. He suggested the EIR needed to be re-visited.
>
>Commissioner Jerry Deal indicated that the windsurfing at Coyote Point is a
>recreational diamond and that building rotation and new wind tunnel tests
>were likely parts of a solution. He said that he didn't have a problem with
>taking a fresh look at the EIR.
>
>Commissioner Ann Keighran indicated that the EIR needed to be re-examined and
>that wind tunnel tests need to be conducted on any configuration to be
>considered for approval.
>
>Commissioner Stanley Visitica indicated that he did not vote to find the EIR
>sufficient in the first place because of concerns including concerns over the
>impact to windsurfing. Vistica said he hoped a new EIR process could lead to
>development of a good analytical tool for evaluating wind impacts which other
>communities could use. He said a wind friendly solution was needed.
>
>Commissioner Mike Coffey listed wind as an area that would be impacted and
>noted that the wind impact, based upon the wide popularity of windsurfing at
>Coyote Point, would have an international impact.
Dr. Mark B. Tischler
Flight Control Group Leader
Army/NASA Rotorcraft Division
Ames Research Center
Mail Stop N210-5 (new mail stop)
Moffett Field, Ca 94035-1000
com phone: 650-604-5563
fax#: 650-604-2414 (new fax number)
email: mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:44 PST