RE: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?

From: Joe Lin (Joe.Lin@quantum.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2000 - 11:22:40 PST

Next message: Ken Poulton: "RE: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?"
Previous message: Michael Stokowski: "RE: Coyote Point/301 Airport Blvd Developement"
Maybe in reply to: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?"
Next in thread: Ken Poulton: "RE: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Message-Id: <3516843E9AE5D011948200805FA7146003004BC8@milcmsgd.qntm.com-DeleteThis>
From: Joe Lin <Joe.Lin@quantum.com-DeleteThis>
To: "'wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis'" <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>
Subject: RE: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:22:40 -0800 
Return-Receipt-To: Joe Lin <Joe.Lin@quantum.com-DeleteThis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I 100% agree with what George has listed. There is no replacement for
Coyote, Flying tiger, or 3rd.

Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chilton, Owain (GEIS) [SMTP:Owain.Chilton@geis.ge.com-DeleteThis]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 8:51 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?
>
> I pretty much agree with what George said.
> Owain.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Haye [mailto:geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 8:42 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?
>
>
>
> *** Everyone! - LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON ALL THIS STUFF. Hit "REPLY"
> and
> take a moment to let us know if you agree, disagree, or decline to state
> whether you agree or not!! Just give us your input, please, because the
> SFBA
> and others are communicating with the airport now and you will be affected
> by what happens, so your input is needed!***
>
> Peter-Thank you for doing what you're doing. I agree that we need to at
> least relay the ingredients of what would make up a viable mitigation
> site.
> Bottom line, however, is that it is not possible to mitigate the loss of
> Coyote Point.
>
> That said, you're list is pretty exhaustive, but here are additional
> requirements for a viable mitigation site, as I see it:
> -> 300+ parking spots very close to the water with good rigging areas.
> ->An equal or better location in terms of wind consistency and wind
> strength
> throughout the spring, summer, and fall (no such place exists)
> -> A spot that can be sailed on a negative two foot tide. 3rd Avenue for
> example, requires a positive two foot tide.
> -> A spot that is currently within a 5 minute drive of Coyote Point. (This
> 5
> minute drive will be a 25 minute drive in a few more years due to an
> extraordinary amount of new in-fill office construction on the Peninsula,
> so
> don't forget that.) Not only is the exact location of Coyote Point is the
> reason why (1) the wind is so good there, (2) why it accessible to so many
> of us, and (3) why many of us have set up our homes and jobs where we
> have.
> -> A spot that has a 1/2+ mile long beach so windsurfers can spread out in
> terms of placing gear on the beach as well as in terms of getting in and
> out
> of the water and launching. Often Coyote has hundreds of sailors doing
> this
> exact thing, and the 3/4 mile long beach is required to allow that
> capacity.
> -> The 1/2+ mile long beach is also required for beginners - for learning,
> and for beginners to experts - for flood tides! One downwind ramp will not
> replace a long beach for our purposes.
>
> A new SFO-sponsored spot at Hunter's Point will not fly. Not
> only is there no decent wind there, whatever gusts come through would be
> offshore. Also, that is an incredibly toxic area - in terms of sediment
> and
> water, thanks to our wondrous U.S. Navy which is guilty of thousands, if
> not
> millions, of Clear Water Act violations in that area. Also, as Kirk
> Lindstrom said on wind_talk, the site must be close to Coyote Point's
> exact
> location -- in order to serve the South Bay. There is no wind, no water,
> and
> nowhere to put a windsurf spot south of the San Mateo Bridge. Everything
> from Oyster Point to Coyote Point will be wrecked under the airport's
> plans,
> so the only viable area that the airport could use would be the San Mateo
> and Foster City coasts.
>
> Mudflats extend all the way down to Seal Point, so Seal Point is
> the first possible spot. We already have a windsurf spot in the works
> there,
> although I know the SFO machine has been checking that out intensely. The
> only other spot is the golf course in Foster City. The airport would need
> to
> spend massive bucks to (1) close down that profitable Foster City golf
> course and turn the area into a permanent county park -- with 300-400
> parking spots, rigging areas, AND a beach stretching down the shoreline
> even
> at high tides, etc.; AND (2) dredge all the mud out of that entire area
> from
> Seal Point to the San Mateo Bridge so that the Third Avenue area could be
> used on low tides (negative tides), as Coyote can be. BUT, taking out the
> sandbars could take out the sandbars that make the chop and swell so swell
> at Third. BUT, dredging would be necessary in time anyway, because the mud
> levels are likely to rise in that area due to the proposed massive amount
> of
> Bay fill. (So, this is NOT as good as it sounds. It's not good, at all.)
> In
> this end, neither of these possible spots, in my opinion, would be true
> mitigation because the wind is not always as good at Third Avenue/Seal
> Point
> as it is at Coyote Point.
>
> Not to mention, after SFO would extend their runway 1.5 miles to
> the
> southeast, we could then experience at Third Avenue more of the reek of
> fuel
> in the air and water that often despoils Coyote Point currently. In
> addition, kitesurfing could be eliminated at Third Avenue because Third
> Avenue then be within the distance-limit from the airport for kites.
>
> Also, the Site-Use Survey (at www.sfba.org) could be modified, I
> guess, but we already have 300+ responses, so the data would be
> incomplete.
> It is clear, though, that a great # of Coyote area sailors come from the
> Peninsula/South Bay. Anything north of the airport is completely
> inaccessible on week days for people who work in the South Bay area. And
> on
> weekends, Hunter's Point is still a heck of a long drive. (I can't believe
> they're considering a windsurf site at Hunter's Point. Why don't they just
> give us an abandoned basketball court in Hunter's Point? Why even bother
> with a windsurf spot?)
>
> I think SFO cannot be trusted, and I think our imaginations of an ideal
> windsurf spot that we could create will get us in trouble and will leave
> us
> with nothing.
>
> SFO is in this for money, that's all. And NO, we still do not have our
> mitigation for losing the original Flying Tigers, nor will we ever have
> our
> mitigation for Coyote Point if we smile and sit back and allow them to
> destroy the Bay.
>
> -George
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 5:34 PM
> Subject: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?
>
>
> > SFO is starting to look around for ways to mitigate the impact on
> windsurfing
> > if their runways are approved (they are assuming they will prevail). I
> have
> > heard rumors of them researching sites both north and south of the
> airport.
> > Rumor is that they want ideally to do mitigation within the boundaries
> of
> San
> > Francisco. A site at India Basin on the north shore of Hunters Point is
> > apparantly in the mix. Has anyone ever investigated this location? All
> of
> my
> > past research into possible sites has focused south of the airport.
> >
> > As I understand it, we are entitled to both oppose the runway and to
> have
> > mitigation if the runways proceed. On the one hand, we need to be
> cautious
> > that comments on mitigation plans do not appear as a concession that we
> are
> > willing to give up on halting the runways, but on the other hand we also
> need
> > to make comments on the mitigation plans so that the plans are
> beneficial
> in
> > the case that they are ultimately implemented. As it stands SF, SFO and
> BCDC
> > have no clue what makes a good windsurfing site besides wind.
> >
> > I think we need to let SFO and BCDC know all of the criteria that make a
> good
> > windsurfing site for all levels of windsurfer. I am forwarding to BCDC
> info
> > from the 301 Airport Boulevard planning process which includes a summary
> of
> > the reasons why Coyote is irreplacable (high capacity, amenities,
> protected
> > from current, good wind, shallow areas for beginners, channel and open
> bay
> > access for advanced, etc.). I was also planning on sending BCDC a list
> of
> > general criteria which would included the following:
> >
> > - Water deep enough to not bottom out the fin
> > - Water shallow enough near shore beginners to touch bottom
> > - Firm bottom vs. muddy bottom to allow carrying 40 lbs. of gear out of
> > shallows
> > - Lack of debris (broken glass, re-bar, old pilings, etc.)
> > - Steady wind
> > - Wind that is not offshore for safety (ideally side shore)
> > - Consistent wind - high number of sailing days
> > - Down wind return - a friendly place to land when pushed downwind
> > - Moderate currents near shore
> > - Easy Access to Site
> > - Easy Access to Water
> >
> > Any other?
> >
> > Another key issue is who will be displaced from Coyote Point if it is
> lost.
> > Are more sailors coming from the north or the south? A mitigation
> location
> > (if there is one) should be located closer to those displaced. Can we
> amend
> > the online survey to include info on where people live or work? or maybe
> the
> > real question is where the travel to Coyote Point from regardless of
> whether
> > it is work or home?
> >
> > Peter
> >

Next message: Ken Poulton: "RE: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?"
Previous message: Michael Stokowski: "RE: Coyote Point/301 Airport Blvd Developement"
Maybe in reply to: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?"
Next in thread: Ken Poulton: "RE: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:23:47 PDT