Eastshore Park & The Bulb/Ashby

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis.com
Date: Mon Oct 01 2001 - 10:40:07 PDT


X-OldHeader: From Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis.com  Mon Oct  1 10:40:55 2001
Return-Path: <Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis.com>
Received: from opus.labs.agilent.com (root@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com [130.29.244.179]) by jr.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id KAA15559 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis.com
Received: from msgbas2.cos.agilent.com (msgbas2.cos.agilent.com [192.168.148.34]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id KAA08271 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by msgbas2.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDC6668 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Mon,  1 Oct 2001 11:40:53 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id v.9d.1c177f92 (1813); Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:40:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <9d.1c177f92.28ea0477@aol.com-DeleteThis.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:40:07 EDT
Subject: Eastshore Park & The Bulb/Ashby
To: wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com
Cc: pk@well.com-DeleteThis.com
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 40


ALBANY BULB

dfielder@cooper.cpmc.org-DeleteThis.com writes:
> The Bulb comments Jerry makes do fit with what I heard. I think I was
> reacting to lack of ability to drive out to near the end of the Bulb (no
road
> appears politically possible out that far), thus entailing at a minimum
long
> hike with gear from parking spot, which already does exist.

A road out onto the Bulb already exists. There is a broken down road on top
of the neck at about 30' elevation and a servicable road on the south side of
the neck at about 10' elevation. The road on the south side of the neck could
be paved and it would not be visible from the higher road. There might be a
couple of spots where some grading or fill would be required to make the road
wide enough for two lanes.

The Albany Bulb is not currently part of the Eastshore Park. Planners seem
hopeful that it will be included but are going forward with planning that
ignores the Bulb for now. Even if they thought a road out to the Bulb was
reasonable, they probably would not include it at this point. I think that we
should at least put the desire for access onto the Bulb into the mix and
indicate that we want to do it in the least intrusive way. I posted a picture
at

http://garbarinoassociates.com/eastshore.htm

The yellow line would be the road for water access on the south side of the
Bulb. The area marked as a lot would probably handle 40 cars and would not be
visible from very far away if the vegetation remains as thick as it is now.
Most of the Bulb has 6' high scrub but much of this may be non-native and
slated for removal. The green line is the old road that is on top of the
neck. I'm guessing that most of the waterfowluse would be in the lagoon and
on the east/northeast side of the Bulb where there is a little wetland area.

INTENSITY OF USE @ ASHBY & ALBANY

> kayaking made it into the second level (Level "1", first level is "0" zero
> use - for nature preserves etc.) while windsurfing was mentioned in next
more
> intense level (Level 2). However, I believe a comment was made that the
list
> of uses in each category wasn't meant to be inclusive, just
representational (
> something to work on?). Hard to see that windsurfing is much more
intrusive
> than kayaking, since both tend to involve car delivery (I believe).

The ratings of intensity of use have classified windsurfing use as a moderate
intensity use. Low intensity uses included kayaking, walking, fishing, etc. I
think it is important to point out that windsurfing is not an intense use in
the onshore environment. Right now Albany Beach and I think Ashby Beach are
classified as low intensity use areas under the more ambitious plan. This
would mean that as the conceptual plan stands, windsurfing would be an
inappropriate use at either of those locations. If nothing else, we need to
preserve our existing use at Ashby.

I plan to write an SFBA letter arguing a that access on the Bulb should be
considered and that windsurfing is an approporiate use at Ashby & Albany
Beaches. I open to any ideas and further input.

> Kayaking issue was surprisingly visible (maybe some of the planners are
into
> it?). Even to the point that for the 4 categories of Use Intensity
described,

The kayakers have been well organized and involved. I have been working with
them on some issues at other sites. The SFBA Board has voted to join CPAC,
the alliance of kayakers, Cal Sailing Club, dog walkers, ball players, etc.

http://www.well.com/user/pk/waterfront/CPAC/index.html

The full name says it all... Coalition for Park Access and Conservation...
there is room for recreational users and conservation or even an enhancement
of the nature that shares the park.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 02:10:21 PST