08-21-2002 Committee Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• DRAFT 0 Secondly, the wall certainly will interrupt the prevailing southeast breezes that have been enjoyed by �j'V adjacent neighborhoods for years and are a trademark of our community. Third, the presence of a 20-foot wall, approximately 50 feet from the nearby homes may certainly be 615jectionable from the standpoint of visual pollution. When coupled with the loss of bay breezes this proposed mitigation would in fact further compound the negative effects of the proposed Bayport project. While the Community Advisory Group referenced potential mitigation strategies for the North Shore, including possible construction of a noise barrier (wall), they did so based on the premise that additional detailed analysis, beyond that provided by the DEIS, be provided. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this revision. We hope that you concur that a supplemental DEIS should be developed, or at least, further public meetings to better describe these revisions be conducted. Additionally, a detailed analysis of the noise barrier for all facets of environmental issues should be undertaken. In closing, aside from our comments regarding this revision, the City remains opposed to the Bayport site, or any combination including Bayport, because we believe the DEIS reinforces our concerns that this site would have substantial long term negative impacts for our community. Sincerely, Mayor Norman L. Malone Barry Beasley, Councilman At -Large B Peter Griffiths, Councilman At -Large A Mike Mosteit, Councilman District 1 Chuck Engelken, Jr. Councilman District 2 Howard Ebow, Councilman District 3 James Warren, Councilman District 4 Bruce Meismer, Councilman District 6 c: John Joerns, Acting City Manager Knox W. Askins, City Attorney Charlie Young, Councilman District 5