Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.18/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA124568164; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:56:04 -0700 Return-Path: <kelly@quake.net-DeleteThis> Received: from gw.quake.net by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA288478164; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:56:04 -0700 Received: from bob (l86.d22.quake.net [204.188.22.86]) by gw.quake.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id VAA29616 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <33F13D64.4AC9@quake.net-DeleteThis> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:51:48 -0700 From: Kelly Wee <kelly@quake.net-DeleteThis> Reply-To: kelly@quake.net-DeleteThis X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Re: Flying Tigers Development? References: <199708121742.KAA14372@apple.com-DeleteThis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Edward W. Scott wrote:
>
> Has anyone been monitoring the development in the Flying Tigers area?
The SFBA has been partially paying attention. Not the particular
development you are referring to. But during the Gulf War, SFO put up
those concrete center dividers blocking the access to flying tigers
proper (remember the access road by the tanks). Randy was unsuccessful
getting BCDC to take any enforcement action. The airport was worried a
terrorist might drive a car bomb right up to the tank farm and KaBoom.
Plus BCDC is infamous for weak enforcement.
But then the airport applied for permits for the major international
terminal expansion you now see going on. We, the windsurf community, had
the opportunity to force SFO to either, reopen tigers access road or
provide something called offsite mitigation. Offsite mitigation might
be improving access on public or private land at a location other than
the site being developed or restricted access. This is the same type of
leverage that got us third ave access. Neither Randy nor Myself could
attend the public hearing to make comments and articles in the SFBA
newsletter yielded no comments to BCDC. If fact, we couldn't find
anyone interested in giving testimony at the hearing. Every stated they
didn't car about tigers. I guess we talked to the wrong people. An
opportunity lost.
> Is Randy Anderson listening?
Randy can not take on every access issue around the bay. His main
emphasis hws now switched from Coyote to Third and also he has a new
born. If you are motivated, it would help us all out if you're willing
to lead the charge.
>
> My questions are: Did BCDC grant a permit to allow this development? Is
> there any provision for shoreline access (specifically, for sailors of
> course)? Is there someone who can be called at BCDC or any other
> development agency who might be willing/able to answer some questions?
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Thirty Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2011
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 557-3686
Jeff Jensen (or was it Jorgensen?) has been very helpful in the past.
Good Luck and feel free to email me for more info.
-- Kelly Wee kelly@quake.net-DeleteThis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:32:28 PST