Re: Coyote Threat

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Date: Fri Apr 23 1999 - 13:07:11 PDT

Next message: Mike Cummins: "more on Windsight"
Previous message: Chris Rowe: "Re: Coyote Threat"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Message-Id: <76055bbd.24522cef@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:07:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Coyote Threat
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis

> hangtime@elnino.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis (Chris Rowe)

> wind study is going to help us, so perhaps we could use an alternate tact.
> Have any windsurfers tried pushing other problems with the building site?
> For example, plenty of local businesses will be upset by the traffic
problem.

There will likely be numerous parties commenting on traffic so it may make
sense to stick to windsurfing generally because I think there is a clear case
that the Response did not deal with key issues like including turbulence as
an element in the impact standard. The hearing on 4/26 is procedural in
nature. The commisioners will want to hear specific comments regarding the
EIR, not general statrements of support.

> Or a legalistic approach: There must be a bunch of good reasons not to put
> super-tall buildings there, otherwise the existing laws and regulations
> would
> not prohibit them. My understanding is that this project would be an
> exception
> to current law.

The project exceeds limits set out by the city in an area plan. The Planning
Commission does have the power to allow an exception. The question of whther
it is allowed is political versus procedural... opinioins and numbers of
people may make a difference when it comes to this. The vote regarding a
variance/exception will likely be in a month or so if the EIR has been
ceritifed.

> Then perhaps we could target letters and correspondence to the
> letter of the law, and argue legalistically why these buildings shouldn't
go
> up rather than arguing subjectively why we wouldn't like it. Instead of
> looking at why the EIR is wrong

The EIR concluded (unfairly in my opinion) that there will be no significant
impact to windsurfing. By sticking with the extreme finding of no significant
impact, the consultant/City does not have to put forward any alternative
development plans (like maybe on that bides by com munity plan limits on
height and coverage and which shifts tall buildings to the upwind side of the
property). If a significant impact was shown both alternatives and mitigation
would be due under the California Environmental Quality Act.

In the very near term, we need to contest what looks like an abuse of the
CEQA process. We also need to start ramping up for a political/community
based plea to the Planning Commissioners and maybe even the City Council.
Whether or not the EIR finds significant impact, the Planning Commission has
the power to make project happen or not. In the case that the EIR shows
significant impact, there must be mitigation.

Peter

Next message: Mike Cummins: "more on Windsight"
Previous message: Chris Rowe: "Re: Coyote Threat"
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 - 02:35:17 PST