Fwd: Five reasons to vote no on the pending marina development of Clipper Cove

Sun May 22 17:29:54 EDT 2016

It's good that the State of California refused to a public loan to finance
the Clipper Cove mega-yacht marina.

But we're not out of the woods yet.

Director Sadler is making a final decision later this spring -- presumably
that means in the next few weeks.

If any of you have a moment, please feel free to use any/all of the
material below to write to Director Sadler and Keren Dill. Their emails are
on the to: line below, and you can copy various SF City Supervisors and
Treasure Island Development Authority members as well (on the cc: line).

If you've written already, thanks. If you haven't, please do so. The more
of us that make our points known, the better our chances of saving the cove.

Thanks!

Best regards,

Al

asargent at stanfordalumni.org | +1 650 269 2176

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Al Sargent <asargent at stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, May 22, 2016 at 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Five reasons to vote no on the pending marina development of
Clipper Cove
To: "Sadler, Lynn at Parks" <Lynn.Sadler at parks.ca.gov>, keren.dill at parks.ca.gov
Cc: John.Avalos at sfgov.org, "eric.l.mar at sfgov.org" <Eric.L.Mar at sfgov.org>,
David.Campos at sfgov.org, Jane.Kim at sfgov.org, Bob.Beck at sfgov.org,
Liz.Hirschhorn at sfgov.org, Richard.Rovetti at sfgov.org, Weihua.Zhang at sfgov.org,
carolyn.goossen at sfgov.org

Director Sadler,

Thank you for refusing to approve a $22M million public loan for
construction of a private mega-yacht marina in Clipper Cove at Treasure
Island.

Since you are making a final decision later this spring, I thought I'd pass
on four additional considerations recently raised by the Clipper Cove
community. Collectively, these increase the risk that this project could
become a significant burden to the State of California.

#1:

The marina could lead to a violation of the *Endangered Species Act
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act>* [1]. Here's why:

   - Clipper Cove will need to be dredged prior to the marina being built.
   It's very shallow, just a few feet deep, in some places. I know this since
   I and other sailors have capsized small sailboats in the cove and have
   gotten our masts stuck in the mud.
   - Dredging in such areas can be very expensive, create or exacerbated an
   environmental problem.
   - Environmental testing should be done to do determine to what degree
   the *sediments of Clipper Cove are* *contaminated with nuclear material*,
   since the US Navy cleaned ships that were used to test atomic bombs
   <http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/07/08/the-hazards-of-growing-up-on-treasure-island>
   [2] in the cove, and since TI is all landfill and has a history of
   various contamination issues
   <http://thebulletin.org/treasure-island-cleanup-exposes-navy%E2%80%99s-mishandling-its-nuclear-past>
   [3].
   - If any contaminated sediment got into the San Francisco Bay estuary,
   it could negatively impact a number of endangered species of fish
   <https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/fish.html> [4] that
   live in San Francisco Bay, including multiple salmon species and delta
   smelt.

#2:

The marina could lead to a violation of the *Clean Water Act
<https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act>* [5], which
stipulates (among other things) that "the discharge of toxic pollutants in
toxic amounts be prohibited".

#3:

Nuclear-contaminated sediment getting into the food chain could lead
to *class-action
lawsuits* by well-funded Bay Area groups.

#4:

>From a financing point of view, dredging and preventing the propagation of
contaminated sediment can be very expensive and risky. It could lead to a
number of unfavorable situations for the developers, including:

   - The need to ask for additional loans to finance dredging operations.
   - However, raising *additional debt to fund dredging could become more
   difficult given that the likelihood of a recession* per leading
   investment firms JPMorgan
   <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-05/jpmorgan-warns-eye-catching-76-probability-recession>
   [6] and Citigroup
   <http://www.businessinsider.com/r-watch-for-us-recession-zero-interest-rates-in-china-next-year-citi-says-2015-12>
   [7].
   - Even if we do not enter a recession, the banking community may start
   to adjust a more defensive posture in terms of their investments. In this
   environment, it'd be hard to imagine *what bank would fund this project*
   involving potential nuclear waste, violations of federal statutes, and
   class action lawsuits.
   - *Developers walking away* from the project because the costs of
   financing outweigh any potential future revenues.
   - In either situation, would the State of California be responsible for
   providing additional public financing and/or remediating contaminated
   sediment?

Once again, thank you for considering this perspective.

Sincerely,

Al Sargent
275 18th Avenue
San Francisco

asargent at stanfordalumni.org | +1 650 269 2176

List of above links:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act
[2]
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/07/08/the-hazards-of-growing-up-on-treasure-island
[3]
http://thebulletin.org/treasure-island-cleanup-exposes-navy%E2%80%99s-mishandling-its-nuclear-past
[4] https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/fish.html
[5] https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act
[6]
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-05/jpmorgan-warns-eye-catching-76-probability-recession
[7]
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-watch-for-us-recession-zero-interest-rates-in-china-next-year-citi-says-2015-12

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Al Sargent <asargent at stanfordalumni.org>
wrote:

> Director Sadler,
>
> I'm writing to urge you to vote no on the pending marina development of
> Clipper Cove.
>
> This plan is wrong for several reasons:
>
> 1) It is a *corporate takeover of a public asset* used by thousands of
> San Francisco kids
> <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwi9pPHJ5fnGAhWCVIgKHY6oBt8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfusd.edu%2Fassets%2Fcode%2Fview.php%3Fid%3D15341748352fd291f6e1cd&ei=NVi1Vf21NoKpoQSO0Zr4DQ&usg=AFQjCNGrz-DkZoPl5a2EzbL0LR8gHl7CMQ&sig2=UVMjenvLFmG9JrMZOw1M6Q&bvm=bv.98717601,d.cGU&cad=rja>
> as part of SFUSD's Set, Sail & Learn program, the disabled
> <http://www.baads.org/> and blind
> <http://www.marinsailingschool.com/blind-sailing.html>; and for cultural
> festivals <http://www.sfdragonboat.com/>, such as the Dragon Boat
> festival attended by tens of thousands. All to provide parking spaces for
> rarely-used, megayachts costing up to 10 million dollars
> <http://sarasotayacht.com/co-brokerage-used-yachts-for-sale-91-100-feet/?rPage=/privatelabel/listing/cache/pl_search_results.jsp?ps=200&fromPrice=75000&fromLength=90&slim=pp288214&uom=126&fromYear=1980&duom=126&wuom=126&toLength=99&luom=126&ps=200&searchPage=%2Flisting%2Fcache%2Fboats_for_sale_qs.jsp&so=4&slim=pp288214&units=Feet&>
> owned by a small number of people that aren't necessarily San Francisco
> residents or even US citizens, who typically use their yachts only 14
> days a year <https://boatbound.co/story>. This is in contrast to the
> almost daily programming <https://tisailing.org/calendar-and-events> from
> Treasure Island Sailing Center (TISC) available to all San Francisco
> residents at minimal cost.
>
> 2) This marina will *rob schoolchildren* of a unique educational
> experience, by effectively ending SFUSD's Set, Sail, Learn program. This is
> because, if this marina were built, it would mean that kids, as well as
> disabled and blind sailors would only be able to sail in high-current
> waters to the east of Clipper Cove. From here, it would be all too easy for
> these less-experienced sailors to get swept out on the twice-daily ebb tide
> into the high-wind waters that have beaten
> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219285/Americas-Cup-boat-cost-Oracle-CEO-Larry-Ellison-8million-crashes-training-run-beneath-Golden-Gate-Bridge.html>
> and even killed <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-24545570> the world's
> best sailors.
>
> 3) *Federal regulations* may come into play. While I'm not an attorney, I
> wonder if this plan would violate federal standards such as the Americans
> with Disabilities Act
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990#Title_III.E2.80.94public_accommodations_.28and_commercial_facilities.29>,
> especially title III, which governs public accommodations. Displacing blind
> and disabled sailors out of a calm cove and into potentially lethal waters
> seems every bit as serious as not providing access ramps in parks and
> playgrounds.
>
> 4) It is *corporate welfare* at its worst: a $22 million dollar loan from
> California taxpayers to subsidize a yacht parking lot for the wealthiest
> 0.01%.
>
> 5) *An alternative exists*: TISC has proposed a moderate scaling back of
> the marina so that it could operate in a body of water the same size as the
> successful Alamitos Bay Sailing Center
> <http://www.longbeach.gov/park/recreation-programs/aquatics/leeway-sailing-and-aquatics-center/>
> in Long Beach, and preserve the community sailing programs that TISC
> provides today.
>
> Are we going to put the needs of wealthy non-residents and non-citizens
> ahead of the children and disabled of San Francisco? If so, what does that
> say about us as a city?
>
> Thank you for considering this perspective.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Al Sargent
> 275 18th Avenue
> San Francisco
>
> asargent at stanfordalumni.org | +1 650 269 2176
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://myfleet.org/pipermail/sfv15/attachments/20160522/ef2dd7d3/attachment.html>