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 AA213200894; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:35:39 -0700 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 AA124480888; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:34:48 -0700 Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id JAA17674 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:34:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis (14436) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 1TTVa26751; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:29:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3ac890c5.24573fd8@aol.com-DeleteThis> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:29:12 EDT Subject: Coyote Planning Commission Meet - Still Hanging in There To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis, Robberson.Bill@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, WHITEHAB@pab27a.ssd.loral.com-DeleteThis, harris4life@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, CoyoteSurf@aol.com-DeleteThis, harris@synopsys.com-DeleteThis, bob@quake.net-DeleteThis, whitehair.bob@icarus.ssd.loral.com-DeleteThis, atomic1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis, bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis, TFeldstein@grmslaw.com-DeleteThis, mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis, bjames@exponent.com-DeleteThis, Randyboz@aol.com-DeleteThis, MStokowski@quadramed.com-DeleteThis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 15 Reply-To: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
The Planning Commission meeting was attended by Dr. Mark Tischler, George
Haye, Clem Wang, Pat Cunningham, myself and one other windsurfer who's name I
didn't catch. We made a strong argument that turbulence was not sufficiently
considered. The meeting went on close to midnight. We argued against a
finding of sufficiency on the EIR and told the Planning Commission that
turbulence must be analyzed. Mark prepared some great view graphs to show the
turbulence data that we do have.
A number of the commissioners were convinced that we are right and they do
not want to see Bay access and recreation suffer just to allow larger
developmernt. I will post a more detailed account later. There was talk of
the Commission voting to make a finding of fact which would confirm that
windsurfing will suffer significant impacts even if the EIR does not conclude
that there are significant impacts. The Commission came close to voting on
such a measure, but finally decided to continue the matters of traffic and
windsurfing for two weeks to their next meeting. It looks like 3-4 of the 7
commissioners are inclined to vote to find that there are significant impacts
to windsurfing and traffic. The commissioners put off this vote because they
wanted to discuss what demands they would then put on the consultant in terms
of mitigation plans. Three commissioners expressed a strong desire to see a
re-worked development that would be more wind friendly and if they prevail
they would be expected to ask the EIR consultant to look at
alternatives such as moving the tall buildings further from windsurfing,
turning building sideways to the wind, lowering the height of buildings, etc.
In short, we did not reach resolution, but we are being heard by some very
intelligent and concerned commissioners. Things are up in the air, but could
turn out as well as one could expect. If the commisioners continue in the
direction they were going, we may see a revised development plan that is much
less dramatic in its effects on the wind.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:18 PST