Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (root@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis [15.0.168.176]) by jr.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA13283 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:54:09 -0800 (PST) From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com [15.255.168.31]) by opus.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA16772 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:53:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id PAA06846 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:53:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id a.b5.1d3d25a (3978); Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:44:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <b5.1d3d25a.2616925e@aol.com-DeleteThis> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:44:30 EST Subject: 3/27/00 SFBA - SFO meeting To: benitaz@email.msn.com-DeleteThis, wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis, billrx@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis, bob@quake.net-DeleteThis, geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, Randyboz@aol.com-DeleteThis, karinaoc@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, Robberson.Bill@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, harris4life@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, CoyoteSurf@aol.com-DeleteThis, bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis, TFeldstein@grmslaw.com-DeleteThis, mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis, jrunge@netcom.com-DeleteThis, jmcgrath@portoakland.com-DeleteThis, lstanley@stanleyrose.com-DeleteThis, ErikRog@aol.com-DeleteThis, buck@velaresorts.com-DeleteThis, david@windcall.com-DeleteThis, carlyle@savesfbay.org-DeleteThis, jameslord@pacbell.net-DeleteThis, cems1@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, Berteva50@aol.com-DeleteThis, clem.wang@altavista.com-DeleteThis, peter@windsurfers.net-DeleteThis, gerry_owen@hp.com-DeleteThis, ggbsf@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, nmackisoc@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, David_McGillicuddy@urscorp.com-DeleteThis, Vitalize@aol.com-DeleteThis, MStokowski@evokesoft.com-DeleteThis, sewing@nbn.com-DeleteThis, windrider@protectourbay.com-DeleteThis, allen.zimmermann@gte.net-DeleteThis, danf@juniper.net-DeleteThis, emunyak@argotech.com-DeleteThis, hunthy@sirius.com-DeleteThis, jaime@lvision.com-DeleteThis, kellywee@pacbell.net-DeleteThis, Leo_Bragagnolo@sfport.com-DeleteThis, Uehlin@imo28.mx.aol.com-DeleteThis, sstorm@well.com-DeleteThis, SSS4@pge.com-DeleteThis, TAXWIND@aol.com-DeleteThis, janhalt@wenet.net-DeleteThis, benitaz@msn.com-DeleteThis, hangtime@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, jip@chrm.com-DeleteThis, peteru@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, gerry_owen@hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis, suwanda@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, Ssuwanda@miadora.com-DeleteThis, JParkmann@chrm.com-DeleteThis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Language: en X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 54 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by jr.hpl.hp.com id PAA13283
Here are my highlights of the SFBA - SFO meeting as distilled form my notes.
John Martin joined us by telephone for the start of the meeting and then left
us to work with staff including Peg Divine, Lynn Calerdine, and Tom Gwyn.
SFBA - SFO meeting 3/27/00
We made it clear during our meeting that SFBA is opposed to building of new
runways on bay fill and that SFBA will take this stand publicly. We spent a
long time explaining why windsurfing from Coyote Point Park and in other
areas near the airport is irreplaceable (capacity, wind quality, wave
quality, amenities, proximity to South Bay and Peninsula sailors, etc.).
While we made it clear that mitigation cannot repair the likely damage that
the runways will do, we also stressed that mitigation is required and
necessary in the event that the runways are built. We indicated that any
mitigation efforts would have to be monumental given the irreplaceable
recreational areas that would be lost or seriously impacted. Suzanne Suwanda
suggested that any windsurfing mitigation plan should be as grandiose for
windsurfing as the runway project was for the airport. Martin felt confident
that SFO can locate new parking and a new beach for windsurfing. He suggested
that the airport could dredge to solve depth problems. He conceded that the
issue of good wind would be tough since they cannot move the wind.
We discussed 3rd Avenue as a likely location for mitigation efforts (buy land
for parking and/or recapture some rigging area). We explained that locations
like 3rd Avenue or Seal Point would be problematic since they already suffer
from shallow water and mud bars at lower tides and might have even greater
depth issues if they see increased sedimentation from the runway project.
John Schultz suggested a RMC Lonestar site as a possibility. The airport
staff was interested in Seal Point and asked about the status of the efforts
to obtain a launch there. We indicated that there had been some council
concern or opposition to the parking area to be used by windsurfers and that
George Haye would need to be consulted for details. Airport staff indicated
an ongoing interest in hearing mitigation ideas and comments.
During the discussion with John Martin, I told John Martin that I had been
informed by a contact at United Airlines that United will be switching over
to larger aircraft (Boeing 757 or 767 instead of Boeing 737) for the SFO-LAX
route. I asked if there was anything that we could do promote a further shift
to higher capacity aircraft (requiring fewer arrivals to carry the same
passenger load). Martin indicated that SFO will be taking action in the
immediate future in a further effort to get the airlines to use larger
aircraft. He declined an offer of SFBA support in these efforts and said that
they did not need political support in order to change the laws or
regulations that affect the power of the airport to influence airline
decisions (such as the power to structure landing fees).
John Martin conceded that the number of arrivals per hour might drop from
45-50 down to 40-42 with an improvement in the fleet mix and elimination of
small aircraft. He also conceded that the use of technology might get the
arrival rate in bad weather above 30 arrivals per hour, but he said he did
not see a full solution without new runways. I suggested that they could
solve the delay problem if they did not add a new flight for each arrival
they eliminated through exclusion of smaller aircraft. Martin's answer was
that new demand is driven by the airline industry and it is not SFO's place
to limit that demand (an aside… if we in the Bay Area believed that
commercial demand must not be controlled, then the Presidio would be a giant
office park and condominium development by now).
General Info on Airport EIR/Planning Progress
- SFO will be release a preliminary sedimentation study any day now and will
share the results with SFBA, Sierra Club, etc. The materials are extensive…
along the ortder of a box full of documentation.
- A firm in Ft. Collins, CO will conduct tests on a 1:1,000 scale model of
the runway expansion. I believe this was specific to wind and wind tunnel
effects but it also may have been for circulation information.
- A possible configuration for the approach lights to runway 28 Right would
have 1/2 the lights embedded in the runway surface and half the lights
extending eastward into the bay. This would reduce the length of the lighting
structure extending out from the end of the runway by around 50%.
- It was mentioned that the mitigation at the Cargill salt ponds might or
might not be the site of any wetlands mitigation. The airport has a long list
of potential mitigation sites, and it may be the case that there is a Cargill
deal in the works that would allow for restoration independent of SFO.
- The airport plans to start construction of the new runways in December 2002
and finish in December of 2007.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:24:01 PDT