Re: COYOTE POINT: Developer back with revised plan

• Next message: bob: "FW: reporter seeking sources"
• Previous message: Richard Dunning: "Oyster Point Sunday"
• Maybe in reply to: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "COYOTE POINT: Developer back with revised plan"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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 AA034239749; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:49:18 -0800
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 AA064499745; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:49:05 -0800
Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id IAA13039 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:49:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id cMXMssiO6_ (4309); Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:35:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0.59ab72d3.255855ce@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:35:26 EST
Subject: Re: COYOTE POINT: Developer back with revised plan
To: atomic1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis, harris4life@yahoo.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, 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, cems1@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, wndrider@hooked.net-DeleteThis, allen.zimmerman@gte.net-DeleteThis, wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41

In a message dated 11/8/99 7:51:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis writes:

> * What would the FAR be if they kept this same building footprint but
> brought them all down to 65'? About .46-.57?

The new height of 90' for 5-story buildings seems high. The original plan had
five story buildings that were 78' excluding penthouse structures and
mechanical sheds. Each floor above the ground floor was 13.5' tall. For the
City's purposes, the height is measured from the curb line and doesn't count
the part of the building below the street (The road level is about 10' above
the waterline and the buildings sit down in a bowl that is probably around
7-8' below the road). If they are measuring the buildings the same way, it
looks like the buildings would need to be 3-story to meet the 65'
restriction. The way my number pencil out, it looks like the following
building combos would yield the following FARS:

5/5/4 = .63

5/5/3 = .59

5/4/3 = .54

4/4/3 = .50

4/3/3 = .45

3/3/3 = .41

• Next message: bob: "FW: reporter seeking sources"
• Previous message: Richard Dunning: "Oyster Point Sunday"
• Maybe in reply to: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "COYOTE POINT: Developer back with revised plan"
• 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 - 02:36:20 PST