RE: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?

From: Chilton, Owain (GEIS) (Owain.Chilton@geis.ge.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2000 - 08:46:58 PST


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (root@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis [15.0.168.176]) by jr.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA28525 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:50:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com [15.255.168.31]) by opus.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA28092 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown-147-100.pilot.net (unknown-147-100.pilot.net [198.232.147.100]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id IAA28607 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown-24-4.pilot.net (unknown-24-4.pilot.net [206.189.24.4]) by unknown-147-100.pilot.net with ESMTP id IAA18630 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:47:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from roc02bxhgeisge.is.ge.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by unknown-24-4.pilot.net with ESMTP id IAA19885 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:47:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ROC02BXHGEISGE with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <CTW4JYC0>; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:46:18 -0500
Message-ID: <499F26102ADED21192E30008C75DFD2702EB0181@roc07bxgeisge.is.ge.com-DeleteThis>
From: "Chilton, Owain (GEIS)" <Owain.Chilton@geis.ge.com-DeleteThis>
To: "'wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis'" <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>
Subject: RE: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:46:58 -0500 
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)

I pretty much agree with what George said.
Owain.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Haye [mailto:geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 8:42 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?

*** Everyone! - LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON ALL THIS STUFF. Hit "REPLY" and
take a moment to let us know if you agree, disagree, or decline to state
whether you agree or not!! Just give us your input, please, because the SFBA
and others are communicating with the airport now and you will be affected
by what happens, so your input is needed!***

Peter-Thank you for doing what you're doing. I agree that we need to at
least relay the ingredients of what would make up a viable mitigation site.
Bottom line, however, is that it is not possible to mitigate the loss of
Coyote Point.

That said, you're list is pretty exhaustive, but here are additional
requirements for a viable mitigation site, as I see it:
-> 300+ parking spots very close to the water with good rigging areas.
->An equal or better location in terms of wind consistency and wind strength
throughout the spring, summer, and fall (no such place exists)
-> A spot that can be sailed on a negative two foot tide. 3rd Avenue for
example, requires a positive two foot tide.
-> A spot that is currently within a 5 minute drive of Coyote Point. (This 5
minute drive will be a 25 minute drive in a few more years due to an
extraordinary amount of new in-fill office construction on the Peninsula, so
don't forget that.) Not only is the exact location of Coyote Point is the
reason why (1) the wind is so good there, (2) why it accessible to so many
of us, and (3) why many of us have set up our homes and jobs where we have.
-> A spot that has a 1/2+ mile long beach so windsurfers can spread out in
terms of placing gear on the beach as well as in terms of getting in and out
of the water and launching. Often Coyote has hundreds of sailors doing this
exact thing, and the 3/4 mile long beach is required to allow that capacity.
-> The 1/2+ mile long beach is also required for beginners - for learning,
and for beginners to experts - for flood tides! One downwind ramp will not
replace a long beach for our purposes.

              A new SFO-sponsored spot at Hunter's Point will not fly. Not
only is there no decent wind there, whatever gusts come through would be
offshore. Also, that is an incredibly toxic area - in terms of sediment and
water, thanks to our wondrous U.S. Navy which is guilty of thousands, if not
millions, of Clear Water Act violations in that area. Also, as Kirk
Lindstrom said on wind_talk, the site must be close to Coyote Point's exact
location -- in order to serve the South Bay. There is no wind, no water, and
nowhere to put a windsurf spot south of the San Mateo Bridge. Everything
from Oyster Point to Coyote Point will be wrecked under the airport's plans,
so the only viable area that the airport could use would be the San Mateo
and Foster City coasts.

          Mudflats extend all the way down to Seal Point, so Seal Point is
the first possible spot. We already have a windsurf spot in the works there,
although I know the SFO machine has been checking that out intensely. The
only other spot is the golf course in Foster City. The airport would need to
spend massive bucks to (1) close down that profitable Foster City golf
course and turn the area into a permanent county park -- with 300-400
parking spots, rigging areas, AND a beach stretching down the shoreline even
at high tides, etc.; AND (2) dredge all the mud out of that entire area from
Seal Point to the San Mateo Bridge so that the Third Avenue area could be
used on low tides (negative tides), as Coyote can be. BUT, taking out the
sandbars could take out the sandbars that make the chop and swell so swell
at Third. BUT, dredging would be necessary in time anyway, because the mud
levels are likely to rise in that area due to the proposed massive amount of
Bay fill. (So, this is NOT as good as it sounds. It's not good, at all.) In
this end, neither of these possible spots, in my opinion, would be true
mitigation because the wind is not always as good at Third Avenue/Seal Point
as it is at Coyote Point.

       Not to mention, after SFO would extend their runway 1.5 miles to the
southeast, we could then experience at Third Avenue more of the reek of fuel
in the air and water that often despoils Coyote Point currently. In
addition, kitesurfing could be eliminated at Third Avenue because Third
Avenue then be within the distance-limit from the airport for kites.

          Also, the Site-Use Survey (at www.sfba.org) could be modified, I
guess, but we already have 300+ responses, so the data would be incomplete.
It is clear, though, that a great # of Coyote area sailors come from the
Peninsula/South Bay. Anything north of the airport is completely
inaccessible on week days for people who work in the South Bay area. And on
weekends, Hunter's Point is still a heck of a long drive. (I can't believe
they're considering a windsurf site at Hunter's Point. Why don't they just
give us an abandoned basketball court in Hunter's Point? Why even bother
with a windsurf spot?)

I think SFO cannot be trusted, and I think our imaginations of an ideal
windsurf spot that we could create will get us in trouble and will leave us
with nothing.

SFO is in this for money, that's all. And NO, we still do not have our
mitigation for losing the original Flying Tigers, nor will we ever have our
mitigation for Coyote Point if we smile and sit back and allow them to
destroy the Bay.

-George

----- Original Message -----
From: <Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 5:34 PM
Subject: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?

> SFO is starting to look around for ways to mitigate the impact on
windsurfing
> if their runways are approved (they are assuming they will prevail). I
have
> heard rumors of them researching sites both north and south of the
airport.
> Rumor is that they want ideally to do mitigation within the boundaries of
San
> Francisco. A site at India Basin on the north shore of Hunters Point is
> apparantly in the mix. Has anyone ever investigated this location? All of
my
> past research into possible sites has focused south of the airport.
>
> As I understand it, we are entitled to both oppose the runway and to have
> mitigation if the runways proceed. On the one hand, we need to be cautious
> that comments on mitigation plans do not appear as a concession that we
are
> willing to give up on halting the runways, but on the other hand we also
need
> to make comments on the mitigation plans so that the plans are beneficial
in
> the case that they are ultimately implemented. As it stands SF, SFO and
BCDC
> have no clue what makes a good windsurfing site besides wind.
>
> I think we need to let SFO and BCDC know all of the criteria that make a
good
> windsurfing site for all levels of windsurfer. I am forwarding to BCDC
info
> from the 301 Airport Boulevard planning process which includes a summary
of
> the reasons why Coyote is irreplacable (high capacity, amenities,
protected
> from current, good wind, shallow areas for beginners, channel and open bay
> access for advanced, etc.). I was also planning on sending BCDC a list of
> general criteria which would included the following:
>
> - Water deep enough to not bottom out the fin
> - Water shallow enough near shore beginners to touch bottom
> - Firm bottom vs. muddy bottom to allow carrying 40 lbs. of gear out of
> shallows
> - Lack of debris (broken glass, re-bar, old pilings, etc.)
> - Steady wind
> - Wind that is not offshore for safety (ideally side shore)
> - Consistent wind - high number of sailing days
> - Down wind return - a friendly place to land when pushed downwind
> - Moderate currents near shore
> - Easy Access to Site
> - Easy Access to Water
>
> Any other?
>
> Another key issue is who will be displaced from Coyote Point if it is
lost.
> Are more sailors coming from the north or the south? A mitigation location
> (if there is one) should be located closer to those displaced. Can we
amend
> the online survey to include info on where people live or work? or maybe
the
> real question is where the travel to Coyote Point from regardless of
whether
> it is work or home?
>
> Peter
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:23:47 PDT