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 AA258525622; Tue, 11 May 1999 11:00:22 -0700 Return-Path: <SHiley@WSGC.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 AA103725621; Tue, 11 May 1999 11:00:21 -0700 Received: from wsgc-bh.wsgc.com (wsgc-bh.wsgc.com [198.93.40.66]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id LAA09361 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 11 May 1999 11:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by wsgc-bh.wsgc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id KAA03787 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 11 May 1999 10:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown(192.168.253.251) by wsgc-bh.wsgc.com via smap (4.1) id xma003544; Tue, 11 May 99 10:49:24 -0700 Received: by SFEXSVR2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <JQMWAWLC>; Tue, 11 May 1999 10:49:29 -0700 Message-Id: <294B00DB40B2D0119AA900A02461F56703D6F2F3@SFEXSVR1> From: Stephen Hiley <SHiley@WSGC.com-DeleteThis> To: "'wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis'" <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> Subject: RE: Windsurfing Dismissed by Burlkingame Planning Commission Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 10:49:29 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain
They suck -- Let's riot!
What's next?
> ----------
> From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis[SMTP:Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis]
> Reply To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 10:23 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Windsurfing Dismissed by Burlkingame Planning Commission
>
> The Burlingame Planning Commission voted 5-2 last night for certification
> of
> the EIR which finds that the 301 Airport Boulevard project will have no
> impact on windsurfing. They did not have any discussion with regard to
> making
> a finding of significant impact and they did not have any discussion as to
>
> the concern we have raised about the standard of significant impact being
> insufficient.
>
> Votes for certification:
>
> Mike Coffey (new chairman/real estate broker)
> Jerry Deal (stepped down as chairman last night)
> David Luzuriage
> Jerry Bojues
> Ann Keighran
>
> Votes against:
>
> Stanley Vistica
> Martin Dreiling (newly seated last night)
>
> Apparantly actual certification will occur at the next meeting. I have a
> call
> in to the City Attorney to confirm this. Commissioers Luzuriaga and
> Keighran
> who made statements of concern about windsurfing two weeks ago had no
> comments about windsurfing. Luzuriaga had been the first to suggest making
> a
> finding of significant impact to windsurfing in the face of an EIR that
> claimed there would be no impact.
>
> Visitica and Dreiling did not initially make statement, but spoke after
> the
> vote when Deal asked what their basis of opposition was. Both were
> concerned
> about traffic and windsurfing impacts. Vistica also said that he expected
> that a lawsuit would result from the decision as it related to
> windsurfing.
>
> Coffey, the chair asked if the SFBA was ready to work with the developer
> for
> the next two weeks to look for some compromise and I explained that the
> developer appears to have made his best offer and it does little to
> improve
> the situation given his insistance on retaining all proposed floor space
> and
> his unwillingness to move or rotate buildings. The compromise proposed
> involves reducing the height of buildings nearer Coyote and adding floors
> to
> the buildings farther back.
>
> There was a report prepared by the EIR consultant which was submitted
> since
> the 4/26 planning meeting. I did not have time to fully read it and I will
>
> have to find out if it is considered part of the EIR as it may bear on the
>
> question of what was or was not addressed. It looks like we may have
> grounds
> to challenge the EIR based upon the failure in looking at or disclosing
> turbulence data in a way that allowed full public review.
>
> In any event, the Planning Commission will have ultimate authority over
> what
> happens once the EIR process is sorted out. They still seem to be calling
> for
> "compromise" but my impression is that they are looking for a token. With
> the
> exception of Commissioner Vistica, the Commissioners did not make any
> statements or comments which would allow one to conclude that they had
> read
> any of the recent letters from SFBA regarding alternatives designs and the
>
> need for a standard of significant impact that deals with turbulence.
>
> Peter
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:26 PST