Eastshore Reg Park Meet 10/11

From: David R. Fielder (dfielder@cooper.cpmc.org-DeleteThis.com)
Date: Sun Oct 21 2001 - 13:25:13 PDT


X-OldHeader: From dfielder@cooper.cpmc.org-DeleteThis.com  Sun Oct 21 13:22:31 2001
Return-Path: <dfielder@cooper.cpmc.org-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 NAA20570 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from msgbas1.cos.agilent.com (msgbas1.cos.agilent.com [192.168.148.33]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id NAA24490 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.85]) by msgbas1.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3C21AB7 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:22:30 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [24.12.42.155] by femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20011021202229.EOWI631.femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[24.12.42.155]> for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:22:29 -0700
X-Sender: dfielder@gate.cpmc.org-DeleteThis.com
Message-Id: <v04020a01b7f8dbaed9a4@[24.12.42.155]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:25:13 -0700
To: wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com
From: "David R. Fielder" <dfielder@cooper.cpmc.org-DeleteThis.com>
Subject: Eastshore Reg Park Meet 10/11
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by jr.labs.agilent.com id NAA20570


Meeting was about half the size of the 9/24 one cut short by power outage. Main points that I came away with are as follows:

1. Public comment/opinion is only one part of decision making process. It's likely that planners and regulations will play an even stronger role (as they stated several times during the meeting). This may be why there really aren't that many distinctions between the two scenarios being "considered".

2. Off-leash dog lobby is strong, but may be curtailed by regulations a bit.

3. Although very eloquent statement made by a windsurfer (and point also made in earlier submissions) re the desirability of road and launch access to south side of Albany Bulb, that appears still to be running in face of vocal community preference to leave the Bulb "wild" for artists, etc.

4. Plan mentioned to expand Pt. Isabel Storm Runoff Treatment Plant (read - sewage treatment) is a bit offputting for those of us who launch there. Although it was a bit ironic that a dog owner complained of her dog getting diarrhea from going in water there. I expect most of us just consider that risk part of the price.

5. Point was made that kayaking and windsurfing are relatively similar and benign water use activities.

6. A windsurfer advocated more on-site storage and less vehicle use. That was rebutted a bit due to need/desire to "follow the wind". Planners seemed surprised that many of us use pagers etc. to track conditions and determine our venues.

7. Mention of need to recognize Emery Point Park (same as Ashby Point?) as an important windsurf launch site, and maybe kitesurfing as well.

8. Next workshop where the "recommended plan" will be presented is to be in February 2002.

        David



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 02:10:23 PST