Return-Path: <Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis> Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (root@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis [15.0.168.176]) by jr.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id LAA06689 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:57:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com [15.255.168.31]) by opus.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id LAA05589 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id LAA00855 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 1.75.399080a (3969); Tue, 2 May 2000 14:53:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <75.399080a.26407e16@aol.com-DeleteThis> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:53:10 EDT Subject: Re: [Fwd: CPYC: ABout SB 1562] To: cpyc@cpyc.com-DeleteThis, tomjmartin@earthlink.net-DeleteThis (Tom Martin), wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 100
In a message dated 5/2/00 10:23:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carlyle@savesfbay.org-DeleteThis writes:
> Joe Pennese of Coyote Point Yacht Club gave me the following report:
> The SFO spokespersons claimed no knowledge of SB 1652 or its impacts and
> stated that they would abide by CEQA "absolutely."
The bill is actually SB 1562. It would be interesting to know if they denied
knowledge just because the bill number was misquoted. Lyn Calerdine of SFO
Airfield Development Bureau was at the Senate heearing on 1562 and was
involved in conversations with Tina, the SFO attorney, in between her
dealings with Burton's staff. Does anyone know if Lyn was at last night's
meeting.
Steve Goldfinger, a Marin windsurfer, yesterday told me that restoring the
salt ponds was like cutting down an entire forest and then replanting it
after the fact. In the end you have a plantation, not a forest. I thought
that was a great analogy that the general public can understand. I'm sure it
has been used before, but I plan to put it out there as much as possible.
I read in the Chron this morning that the editor of the Examiner admitted
that he had asked for Willie Brown's help relative to the sale of the Chron
and had offered editorial favoritism in exchange. I think someone need to
push the question of how we can trust the newspapers to be objective given
this kind of deal. It sounds to me like a monumental violation of
journalistic integrity. I'm not really the person to wrtie the letter since
the Examiner did publish my letter to the editor on the day of the SB1562
hearing.
Peter Thorner
In a message dated 5/2/00 10:23:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carlyle@savesfbay.org-DeleteThis writes:
> Joe Pennese of Coyote Point Yacht Club gave me the following report:
>
> Another packed house of Airport opponents.
>
> Eighty-five people showed up to the small auditorium which had a similar
set
> up to the hearing in Palo Alto (chairs in the center floor with poster
> displays ringing the room along the walls). There was about 20 SFO staff.
>
> On the whole Joe said the presentations were "excellent" with emotions
> evident but kept in check by politeness.
>
> Joe said that the SFO folks seemed unprepared for the professional
questions
> from the audience and were often at a loss for words. They were unable to
> answer questions from the audience like: "Why is SFO not using existing
USGS
> data?" or "Why is the Airport not using existing
>
> The SFO spokespersons claimed no knowledge of SB 1652 or its impacts and
> stated that they would abide by CEQA "absolutely."
>
> Joe pointed out that one of the poster boards shows the disposal of the
> dredge material in San Pablo Bay, the Cargill salt ponds (oh really), and
> both ends of the San Mateo bridge.
>
> SFO spokespersons also stated that they will contribute to mitigation, but
> will not handle it directly (supporting what David has said from the
start).
>
> SFO said they are currently performing hydrological impact tests, but
would
> not say where or how. SFO said they were not doing wing tip vortex effect
> studies. It is the wing tip vortices that impact yachts and wind surfing.
> This begs the question: Can we take SFO's study of recreational impacts
> seriously?
>
> Joe noted that more people were talking about housing and traffic than
last
> summer. One typical comment was: "We have one highway that runs trough the
> Airport surrounded by $500,000 houses. Where are these 5,000 new employees
> going to live and how are they going to get there?"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:24:10 PDT