RE: SF Bay Windsurfing Threatened - COMMENT LETTER - Even Easier

From: George Haye (ghaye99@hotmail.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Thu Aug 12 1999 - 14:08:07 PDT


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA250843122; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:25:22 -0700
Return-Path: <ghaye99@hotmail.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA123353120; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:25:20 -0700
Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f144.hotmail.com [216.32.181.144]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with SMTP id OAA06089 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 5398 invoked by uid 0); 12 Aug 1999 21:08:09 -0000
Message-Id: <19990812210809.5397.qmail@hotmail.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from 209.245.137.232 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:08:07 PDT
X-Originating-Ip: [209.245.137.232]
From: "George Haye" <ghaye99@hotmail.com-DeleteThis>
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: RE: SF Bay Windsurfing Threatened - COMMENT LETTER - Even Easier
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:08:07 PDT
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Stephen,
I'm not aware of e-mail addresses or fax numbers through which we can submit
these comment letters. (Burlingame actually didn't have an e-mail address,
but they did have a fax #. And, you're right, that worked very well.)

If anyone finds out e-mail addresses or fax #'s to use for Ms. Gitelman at
S.F. Planning and/or for Ms. Garibaldi at the F.A.A., let us know.

-George

>From: Stephen Hiley <SHiley@WSGC.com-DeleteThis>
>Reply-To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
>To: Multiple recipients of list <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>
>Subject: RE: SF Bay Windsurfing Threatened - COMMENT LETTER ... Even Easie
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:47:53 -0700
>
>Do these people/offices have e-mail addresses? If so, would they accept
>comment "letters" that way? This method seemed to generate large responses
>to the city of Burlingame in the previous campaign.
>
> > ----------
> > From: George Haye[SMTP:geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis]
> > Reply To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 8:39 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: SF Bay Windsurfing Threatened - COMMENT LETTER
> >
> > Susan K. is right - we do need to write letters. I'VE MADE IT REAL EASY,
> > FOLKS. Just print, sign, and mail the Comment Letter below. The letter
>is
> > also accessible through the SFBA website.
> >
> > If anyone could post the COMMENT LETTER E-MAIL (the letter itself, and
> > also
> > my introduction) to rec.windsurfing and any other windsurfing newsgroups
> > you
> > know of, that would be a great help!
> > I am not a newsgroup wizard. : )
> >
> > Again, if you post to rec.windsurfing, it would be great if you could
>then
> >
> > post a message here on wind_talk, so that no one duplicates the effort.
> > Thanks for doing this last time for the Alert, Rick.
> >
> > -George
> > "Got wind?"
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: "George Haye" <geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis>
> > To: geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis
> > Subject: SF Bay Windsurfing Threatened - COMMENT LETTER
> > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:08:05 PDT
> >
> > URGENT! HELP SAVE WINDSURFING IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY! Print, sign, and
>mail
> > a
> > copy of the Comment Letter (SEE BELOW), and it will really help! If
> > everyone
> > sends a letter, we can win this battle! Even if you don't live in
> > California, if you want to protect windsurfing access, please help!
> > San Francisco International Airport's plans would wipe out COYOTE
> > POINT. THIRD AVENUE could also be ruined. And, FOUR other windsurf spots
> > are
> > in danger. All letters must be received by SEPTEMBER 9, 1999. Send your
> > letter to one of the addresses listed at the top. Or, send letters to
>both
> >
> > of them. An original comment letter is best, but if you send in a copy
>of
> > this Comment Letter (SEE BELOW), it will definitely make a difference.
> > For more info, and a ready-to-print copy of the Comment Letter,
>see:
> >
> > San Francisco Boardsailing Association: http://www.sfba.org/sfo.htm
> > (Click on the link at the very bottom of the web page.)(Check out the
> > modified satellite picture.)
> > THANKS FOR YOUR HELP! *WE WILL WIN.*
> > Here's the plan: Send a Comment Letter, then...GO WINDSURFING!
> > -George Haye, Member of the San Francisco Boardsailing Association
> > My E-Mail: geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > August 11, 1999
> >
> > Ms. Hilary Gitelman, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco
>Planning
> > Department, 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA
> >
> > Ms. Camille Garibaldi, Federal Aviation Administration, San Francisco
> > Airports District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room 210, Burlingame, CA
>94010,
> >
> > USA
> >
> > Dear Ms. Gitelman and Ms. Garibaldi,
> > I am a windsurfer who is concerned about San Francisco International
> >
> > Airport's runway expansion project. Several world-class windsurfing
>areas
> > could be lost or severely degraded if the airport's proposed runway
> > expansion proceeds, including: COYOTE POINT, THIRD AVENUE, OYSTER POINT,
> > FLYING TIGERS, EMBASSY SUITES, and OLD THIRD AVENUE. This includes some
>of
> >
> > the best and most popular windsurf spots in the world!
> > The Airport's proposed runway, which would extend down into the Bay
> > offshore from Coyote Point, would cut off windsurf access to the open
>Bay.
> >
> > This would ruin Coyote Point as a windsurf spot for the following
>reasons:
> > a
> > windsurfer could no longer access the outer waters which often have the
> > best
> > conditions for sailing; the wind swells from the open Bay which are
>ridden
> >
> > and jumped by windsurfers would be blocked by the runways; and the water
> > quality in the closed-off area would deteriorate, especially after
>storms.
> > I
> > am also concerned about these same effects on the Oyster Point, Flying
> > Tigers, and Embassy Suites areas.
> > Also, if mud levels and sand bars rise due to changes in Bay
> > hydrology
> > caused by the runways and massive Bay fill, windsurf access could be
> > ruined
> > at all of the sites mentioned above, including the extremely popular
>spot
> > Third Avenue, located in Foster City. The environmental review process
> > must
> > examine to what extent mud levels and sand bars are expected to rise (or
> > lower) all along the Bay shore. Real-world examples must be studied,
> > rather
> > than just doing calculations. The studies must be specific to each
> > particular area along the Bay shore. The review process must also
>examine
> > whether silting would occur in these areas and how likely it would be
>that
> >
> > marshland would form along the shorelines. The scientific analysis must
>be
> >
> > long-range in scope because these are world-class windsurf sites which
> > will
> > be used into perpetuity by generations of windsurfers if they are not
> > destroyed.
> > The windsurf areas mentioned are priceless and are irreplaceable.
> > The Bay
> > fill and runway expansion should not be allowed to occur, because
> > mitigation
> > is not possible. It is not possible to "develop" comparable windsurf
>spots
> >
> > elsewhere. Coyote Point, for example, is irreplaceable because of
>several
> > reasons, including: (1) it is well situated for the prevailing Northwest
> > and
> > West winds that blow consistently through the San Bruno gap and/or from
> > the
> > fog bank over the western mountains; (2) during the season (from the
> > beginning of March through the end of October), because of its exact
> > geographical location, Coyote Point experiences as many good windy days
>as
> >
> > anywhere; (3) hundreds of parking spots are available close to the
>water;
> > (4) The beach stretches a distance of over half a mile - which is
>critical
> >
> > for beginners, and advanced sailors in flood tides; (5) while other
>local
> > windsurf spots cannot be used on low tides, Coyote Point can be used in
> > all
> > tide conditions - even negative tides.
> > The environmental review process must examine what effects the
> > proposed
> > project would have on windsurfing, as well as what effects it would have
> > on
> > wildlife, noise in surrounding communities, aesthetics, freeway and
>street
> >
> > traffic, and other recreational uses in the area such as boating. The
> > environmental review process must consider all other alternatives to
> > filling
> > the Bay and expanding the runways, including: all technical solutions
> > which
> > could increase airport capacity in bad weather conditions; cooperation
> > with
> > and/or expansion of other airports including Oakland, San Jose, Moffet
> > Field, and other military bases; extending BART between SFO and OAK
> > airports
> > in order to transport airline passengers, commuters, and cargo; high
>speed
> >
> > trains between the Bay Area and Southern California; and building a new
> > airport near Morgan Hill and/or near Pleasanton.
> >
> > Signature:
> >
> > Date:
> >
> > Name:
> >
> > Address:
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
> >
>

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:36:01 PST