Return-Path: <Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis> Received: from opus.labs.agilent.com (root@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis [130.29.244.179]) by jr.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id LAA29784 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:04:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis Received: from msgbas1t.cos.agilent.com (msgbas1t.cos.agilent.com [130.29.152.59]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id LAA00893 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by msgbas1t.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE713D9 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:04:18 -0600 (MDT) Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id v.e8.7c29d30 (9819) for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <e8.7c29d30.26b3250c@aol.com-DeleteThis> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:03:56 EDT Subject: SFO Runways To: wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 104
Phil March said:
> Over the years, environmental groups have generally fallen into
> two categories--those who aim to halt projects completely and
> use any method possible and those who seek to strike a balance
> between growth and environmentalism--and I for one fall in
> the latter category.
I believe that I fall in the latter category as well, but after doing a lot
of research I have come to the conclusion that SFO is asking for something
that has limited benefits and monumental impacts. The aviation and growth
issues should be dealt with regionally because we are looking at regional
impacts.
I think it is important to have membership from all viewpoints at the 8/3
meeting re. SFO. I think if people know more of the facts they would
understand why we are having trouble finding a compromise position with the
SFO Runways... the key points being:
1) SFO can solve the majority of their delays without building any new runways
2) Nasa and the aviation industry is working on new technologies that will
allow SFO to receive just as many arrivals in bad weather without building a
runway 4,300' out into the bay. Many of the new technologies are already in
use or in field testing in commercial aircraft.
www.ads-b.com
www.asc.nasa.gov/tap/
3) Mitigation programs cannot replace what will be lost. The winds off Coyote
can't be moved north or south. As far as I know, there aren't a lot of good
shoreline locations for new launches. SFBA has met with the airport and
talked about what mitigations would be better than others.
People need to sit and think about how many elements go into a world class
windsurfing site like Coyote (not that Coyote is all we stand to lose) ...
a) steady and consistent winds coming through San Bruno Gap
b) no offshore winds that will send beginners to the East Bay
c) a point that will catch beginners that get pushed downwind or on a flood
tide
d) good rigging areas
e) long beach with room for lots of people to come in and out (vs. narrow
ramps)
f) more than adequate parking so you aren't out if you don't beat the crowd
g) sailable at all tide levels unlike 3rd, Palo Alto
h) firm bottom near shore so you don't wade in the mud
i) amenities including bathrooms, pay phone
j) a less windy park area for non-windsurfing friends and family
k) conditions that appeal to very level of windsurfer from beginner to pro
l) a windsurf shop nearby... with rentals even
m) safe patrolled parking lot, no broken glass, rangers watching out
In a message dated 7/28/00 9:49:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
geohaye@yahoo.com-DeleteThis writes:
> What would SFO offer us in return? They could offer us
> all a one-time 10-cents-off coupon for a soft drink in
> the terminal.
>
> As we spoke about at the SFBA Board meeting last
> night, if SFO does a deal to flood the Cargill salt
> ponds in the South Bay, they will probably: (1)
> destroy healthy wetlands which would become flooded;
> (2) end windsurfing on most days at most sites
> automatically by lowering the effective tide levels by
> 1 1/2 feet in the South Bay. Palo Alto, THIRD AVENUE,
> Old Third Ave, Seal Point would be devestated. Combine
> that with Oyster Point, Flying Tigers, Genentech,
> Marriott Flats, Embassy Suites, and COYOTE POINT being
> physically cut off from the Bay and silted in -- we
> are left with no windsurfing access at all.
>
> ~George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:24:32 PDT