Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA03150; Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:22:31 -0700 Return-Path: <shred@netcom.com-DeleteThis> Received: from netcom3.netcom.com by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA04095; Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:22:52 -0700 Received: by netcom3.netcom.com (8.6.8.1/Netcom) id VAA28328; Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:17:56 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:17:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "Edward W. Scott" <shred@netcom.com-DeleteThis> Subject: Re: 3rd ave To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis In-Reply-To: <9409150122.AA06224@mri.com-DeleteThis> Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9409142157.A27044-0100000@netcom3> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sorry for the 2d message. I forgot something.
Again, I differ. The public safety concern is legitimate. Speaking of
liability, you imagine the city's liability if a fire started in the
grass on that fill pile and you couldn't get a fire truck into the lot cause
of the parked cars. That'd be a lot more of a problem that the access issue.
The comments on the other access spots, Oyster, Genentech, Crown Sterling,
etc..., are all right on. There's probably some minimum level of access
parking the govt./private entity must provide. I'd like to see the case
law/statutory authority on this. Maybe FC is doing it on the cheap cause
it's a short-term solution until they develop and/or sell the property.
Anyone know the longterm plan on that plot?
We should also be careful what one person at the City Planning Dept.
says. She may not speak for the city. Sure makes for interesting
e-mail, though! :)
-shrEd
Ed Scott
shred@netcom.com-DeleteThis
On Wed, 14 Sep 1994, Geoff Boehm wrote:
> concerned about the cost of improvements, or the fire truck access.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:28:06 PST