Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Forum for kitesurfers
windsurfer-resurrection
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby windsurfer-resurrection » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:42 am

1
August 15, 2011
Mr. Bill Wyko
Environmental Review Officer
Planning Department, City of San Francisco
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
Bill.wyko@sfgov.org
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 34th America’s Cup and the need to acknowledge and fully address Impacts to the Recreational Uses of Windsurfing and Kiteboarding on San Francisco Bay
Dear Mr. Wyko:
This letter provides comments with respect to the content and proposed findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 34th America’s Cup (AC34 Event).
The San Francisco Boardsailing Association (SFBA) is a California not-for-profit organization founded in 1986 to protect and enhance boardsailing access, and to promote boardsailing safety and related education in the San Francisco Bay Area. To this end, SFBA actively participates in the planning processes for special events, development, reuse and redevelopment of public and private properties adjacent to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean which may enhance, threaten and/or directly or indirectly impact the recreational uses of Windsurfing and/or Kiteboarding.
As sailors and kiters on San Francisco Bay, SFBA is excited about San Francisco’s hosting of the America’s Cup and believe it can be accomplished in a balanced manner.
SFBA’s main concern with the AC34 Event (Project) as proposed is the profound denial of the DEIR to acknowledge and evaluate the project-related direct and significant impacts to those existing recreation and fitness activities which take place daily from March through October on San Francisco Bay via access from proposed AC34 Venues. It is clear that should the project proceed as described, the World-Class recreational uses of windsurfing and kiteboarding from the Golden Gate Bridge to the San Francisco City-Front will at best be severely restricted and at worst be completely prohibited. This will be due to on-water restrictions during AC34 races, and unmanageable traffic congestion and site overuse resulting in adequate access to and/or parking within Crissy Field, the St. Francis Yacht Club Beach and Fort Baker (Cavallo Point) during those periods of AC 34 activity in 2012 and 2013.
2
SFBA’s largest disappointment in the DEIR project proposal process lies in its simplification of the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) position - taken throughout the document - that only a direct physical impact on a recreational facility (e.g., physical damage or excessive wear-and-tear, etc.) could be a significant impact. This position is not only analytically evasive in the context of this project, it flies directly in the face of the intent of local, state and national law and policy (e.g., BCDC’s Bay Plan, the National Park Service and GGNRA, etc.) and SFBA’s previous discussions with the San Francisco America’s Cup Organizing Committee (SFACOC), the AC34 Event Authority and the AC34 Principal of Race (POC), all of whom are aware of the potentially significant impacts to windsurfing and kiteboarding access along the San Francisco shoreline during 2012 and 2013.
SFBA maintains that the estimated 75,000 visitors to Crissy Field on a peak weekend day in 2012, and 77,000 per peak weekend day in 2013 is an abusive overuse of the Crissy area, resulting in limited-to-prohibited parking, and traffic congestion that will make the mid-afternoon trip to the Crissy East Beach undoable.
Windsurfing and kiteboarding at Crissy Field is primarily for advanced boarders, and the participants cross all socio and economic boundaries. The sports are equipment intensive, thus they require a vehicle in which to transport boards, kites, sails, masts and booms… and adequate surface-friendly, non-pavement space (e.g., grass or grass-crete) at the launch sites to safely assemble gear.
Given the array of high-tech equipment used, the majority of windsurfers launching at Crissy need a minimum of 15 knots of wind to be able to sail… some kiteboarders can launch with less; this usually occurs between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM each day of the season. Thus, during AC 34 races, even if existing windsurfers and kiteboarders could reach Crissy Field or the St. Francis YC Beach and find a parking spot in the mid-afternoon when the winds become strong enough to sail, the on-water Race-Area restrictions from 1:00 PM to at least 5:00 PM each day will effectively prohibit anyone from launching while the winds are suitable.
The DEIR provides the following opinion:
"It is likely that on peak use days, some recreationists who currently use Marina Green, Crissy Fields, and Aquatic Park for activities such as dog walking, running, and kite flying and for access to shoreline areas for swimming, fishing, kayaking, and surfing would not want to use these areas due to the size of crowds, spectator support facilities, and nearshore spectator boats present for America’s Cup events. Some recreationists may instead use other similar regional recreational facilities and shoreline areas, including those described in Section 5.11.1, Setting (e.g., the Presidio, other Crissy Field or Fort Mason areas), as well as other nearby resources such as Golden Gate Park, Baker Beach, and Ocean Beach, resulting in occasional increases in use of other recreational facilities in San Francisco during the AC34 events. However, given the availability of recreational facilities in the region,
3
increased use of regional recreational facilities would not result in substantial physical deterioration of recreational resources, or otherwise result in physical degradation of existing recreational resources, and the impact would be less than significant."
The World-Class recreational uses of windsurfing and kiteboarding at Crissy East Beach and the St. FYC Beach are irreplaceable because of the geography and wind conditions unique to the Golden Gate. Thus, counter to the above statement in the DEIR that recreational users can and will go somewhere else given the abundance of Bay Area recreational facilities; this is not the case for these recreational uses. In addition, should the hundreds of windsurfers and kiteboarders who frequent Crissy Field have the time and resources to travel to other parts of SF Bay, those limited access points would quickly become overwhelmed.
The DEIR also fails to individually acknowledge each of the large variety of sports and the different population segments they serve, and it fails to identify the different specific locations in which these sports are pursued. Because it fails to accurately portray each of the sports and the specific locations and timeframes in which they are possible, the DEIR is inaccurate and incomplete. It is expected that the DEIR fully analyze the different sports and their different users in their different locations, for impacts on land use, traffic, community health, noise and other effects.
In addition, the above comment regarding “the availability of recreational facilities in the region” as a viable alternative completely ignores 1) the time available and ability of users living within the AC 34 impacted community to use these other facilities; and 2) the impacts on regional transportation, congestion and air pollution.
Significance Determinations (DEIR Chapter 5.1.2)
As stated in the DEIR: “The purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. Mitigation measures are not required for effects that are not found to be significant. As defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15382:
“Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or
aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. The conclusion of each impact analysis provides a significance determination to indicate if mitigation measures are warranted.”
4
The DEIR takes the position of the CEQA guideline above which essentially states that only a direct physical change to recreational facilities can be found to have a significant impact, and that the restrictions and prohibitions that the proposed AC34 Event will place upon the existing recreational uses of windsurfing and kiteboarding are instead economic or social changes. It concludes that these recreational changes (economical or social changes), although significant in and of themselves, shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment.
However, these significant changes in existing recreational uses are a direct impact of the physical changes in transportation and circulation congestion, just as the effect of sitting-in-traffic is an impact. Thus they should weigh-in on the increased significance determination of the transportation and circulations impacts, and, while the project sponsor works to mitigate or reduce the effects of sitting-in-traffic, they should also work to mitigate the effect of restricting and prohibiting the existing recreational uses of windsurfing and kiteboarding.
The DEIR finds that most of the Transportation and Circulation Impacts are “SUM – Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation” - SFBA maintains that mitigation of the restriction and/or prohibition of an existing recreational use due to the significant and unavoidable Transportation and Circulation Impacts should indeed be a focus of the warranted mitigation measures. Examples of mitigation measures which might lessen but not eliminate the impacts could include 1) improved launch facilities at Cavallo Point in Fort Baker, 2) windsurfer and kiteboarder access-only privileges at Crissy, StFYC and Fort Baker, and 3) vastly improved launch facilities at the northern end of Treasure Island.
Approach to Analysis of Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation
The DEIR states that:
“Recreational opportunities within the central portion of San Francisco Bay are considered in this analysis since the proposed America’s Cup race course would be within the Central Bay. The Bay is a widely popular place for in-water recreation activities such as wind surfing, kayaking, boating, and fishing. The Central Bay is generally bounded by the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to the north; the cities of Richmond, Berkeley, and Emeryville to the east; the Bay Bridge to the south; and the Golden Gate Bridge to the west.”
SFBA is aware, however, that the DEIR is a CEQA document and that the impact analysis does not address disruption to or use of existing recreational facilities. Rather, consistent with the CEQA significance criteria, the impact analysis only addresses the potential for substantial physical adverse effects on recreational resources/facilities.
5
The DEIR states that existing local planning documents and maps were reviewed to identify, where available, the location, use types, use levels, capacity, and sensitivity of resources of recreational facilities in the project area that, because of their proximity, could be directly or indirectly affected by the project. It also maintains that to determine the potential for project activities to cause direct physical effects on recreational resources (i.e., physical deterioration of facilities, acceleration of physical deterioration of facilities, or physically degrade existing resources), the proposed construction and operations at project sites were compared with existing usage of identified recreational resources at or near those sites.
It also states that potential indirect effects on recreational resources were identified through the same means, as well as by reviewing the impact findings presented in other pertinent sections of the DEIR. Indirect effects on recreational resources that can result from impacts on other environmental resources include traffic hazards along recreational routes or impeded access to recreational resources (see Section 5.6, Transportation and Circulation). The DEIR also maintains that the results of the impact analyses on these other environmental resources were used to inform the recreational impact analysis.
With all the work put into the analysis of environmental settings, impacts and mitigation, SFBA would like to know: 1) Why recreational opportunities within the central portion of San Francisco Bay are not considered more thoroughly in this analysis; and 2) Why the direct and indirect impacts on existing water contact recreational access and uses such as windsurfing and kiteboarding were not identified, if for no other reason than to do a thorough job in determining the significance of physical changes and identifying relevant potential mitigation measures?
The DEIR also reminds us that under CEQA, the Lead Agency may evaluate impacts on existing recreational resources in the context of the availability of similar recreational resources to the public. Physical degradation of, or short-term disruption of access to a recreational facility, does not automatically result in a finding of a significant recreational impact under CEQA if the public has access to alternative, similar resources during that period.
Again, SFBA would like to remind the Lead Agency that the windsurfers and kiteboarders who frequent the waters off of Crissy Field East Beach presently have NO ALTERNTIVE or SIMILAR RESOURCES available.
In determining the potential effects of the AC34 events on recreational resources, we are told that the DEIR considers the multiple implementation plans presented in Chapter 3, including the People Plan, the Water and Air Traffic Plan, the Public Safety Plan, and the Parks Event Operations Plan. It is our understanding that these implementation plans, along with ongoing agency coordination efforts for regional planning and design of the AC34 event facilities, are intended in part to minimize disruption
6
to or use of existing recreational resources. However, these and other plans referenced in the DEIR are missing, to be published separately or later in 2011 or beyond.
The DEIR also states that temporary disruption of the existing visitor experience at recreational facilities is acknowledged as a potential consequence of the AC34 events, and that these disruptions are being addressed through the AC34 events planning and design process, including the implementation plans and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis to be completed by NPS.
SFBA would like to know how the DEIR can be considered adequate and complete without the referenced implementation plans and the necessary coordination between them?
Significance Criteria
The DEIR states that the City has not formally adopted significance standards for impacts related to recreation, but generally considers that implementation of the project could have a potentially significant impact related to recreation if it were to:
• “Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated;”
• “Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment;” or
• “Physically degrade existing recreational resources.”
SFBA would like to know: Why has the City not adopted significance standards for impacts to recreation?
SFBA would also like to know: Should the City adopt significance standards, would they include: “Inhibit or prohibit access to shoreline facilities or water-contact recreational uses?”
It is our understanding that the City also has not formally adopted significant standards for impacts related to land use, but generally considers that implementation of projects could have a potentially significant impact related to land use if the projects were to:
• “Physically divide an existing community;”
• “Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect;” or
• “Have a substantial impact on the existing character of the vicinity.”
7
SFBA would like to know: Why has the City not adopted significance standards for impacts to land use?
Local / State Law and Policy
Windsurfing is a class of recreation that is protected in State policy beginning with the Constitution, and continuing through to the legislation that establishes the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Navigational Code that is the framework for Berkeley’s management of the marina, and most recently legislation establishing a Bay Water Trail on San Francisco Bay. The policy framework begins with Section 4 of Article 10 of the Constitution that provides:
“No individual … shall be permitted to exclude the right-of-way to such water … or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters of the State shall always be attainable for the people thereof. “
Such liberal interpretation is given in both the McAteer-Petris Act and the Navigation Code. The former provides that:
“…existing access to the shoreline and waters of the San Francisco Bay is inadequate and that maximum feasible public access, consistent with a proposed project, should be provided.”
Further guidance is given in Public Resources Code Section 66690 et seq. where the Legislature declared:
“Water–oriented recreational uses of San Francisco Bay, including …sailboarding…are of great benefit to the public welfare of the San Francisco Bay Area.”
Further goals, articulated under the State’s constitutional authority (Section 66692(d)) include
“…improving access to, within, and around the bay…” (Section 66691(f).)
Thus, windsurfing falls within the provisions of the Constitution, and represents a fundamental right that may not be abridged without due process, and may not be abridged without substantial and compelling evidence to support that restriction SFBA believes that these policies should be cited in the development of significance criteria, and in analyzing the impacts of the America's Cup races, proposed shoreline facilities, usurpation of parking, and proposals to restrict access onto the Bay from recreational sites such as Crissy Field and the beach at the St. Francis Yacht Club. These are all public beaches to which these policies apply.
8
The Bay Plan was amended in 2006 to give more protection to access onto the water. Citations include:
• Policy 3 g. Sandy beaches should be preserved... for recreational use...
• Policy 4: To assure optimum use of the Bay for recreation, the following facilities should be encouraged in waterfront parks...
o (a) (4) public launching facilities for a variety of ...water-oriented craft, such as ...sailboards...should be provided in waterfront parks where feasible, [and]
o (5) ...commercial recreation facilities should be permitted within waterfront parks provided they are clearly incidental to the park use...and do not obstruct public access to and enjoyment of the Bay..."
In closing, SFBA maintains that windsurfing, kiteboarding and other recreational uses are fundamental rights, and that disruption of the ability to do so for extended periods of time must be considered a significant impact. For the multiple reasons described above, SFBA considers the DEIR inaccurate and incomplete.
Sincerely,
William Robberson, President
San Francisco Boardsailing Association
BillRobberson@sfba.org
Cc: Rick.cooper@sfgov.org
Linda.avery@sfgov.org
Attachments
SFBA AC34 comments final.pdf
(156.49 KiB) Downloaded 50 times

flyrob
Frequent Poster
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:05 am
Local Beach: Toronto Islands, Oliphant, Lake Simcoe Canada
Favorite Beaches: OBX, Tampa Bay, El Yaque and Coche Island, Venezuela, Tarifa, Spain
Style: Freeride
Gear: Ocean Rodeo and Naish
Brand Affiliation: Ocean Rodeo Tech Team Rider
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby flyrob » Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:24 am

My Dear Chaps!

Image

Sincerely,
Windsurfers


orrrrrr........



Dudes!

No fair hogging the ocean. Plenty of ocean and stoke to go around!

The Kiters

windsurfer-resurrection
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby windsurfer-resurrection » Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:07 am

please distribute the above letters together as both are needed to fully understand
the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process and the federal NEPA (National
Environmental Policy Act) processs of impact assessment and elimination/mitigation. We plan to
have a large SFBA members meeting in the early spring (March or April) to address safety, access
and the AC34 plans. The head of the City's SFACOC (San Francisco America's Cup Organizing
Committee) has agreed to present and be available for Q&A.... NPS will be there as well. Please
spread the work, and if anyone wants to help or be more involved, please have them contact me... email and phone.
Mailing Address:

SFBA
1592 Union Street, Box 301
San Francisco, California 94123


E-Mail: BillRobberson@sfba.org

General questions about the organization - president@sfba.org

Membership questions - membership@sfba.org

Newsletter - newsletter@sfba.org

Questions/problems with the website - webmaster@sfba.org

Questions about Crissy Field issues: crissy@sfba.org

Local racing issues - racing@sfba.org

Questions about the access issues on the Peninsula - coyote@sfba.org

All other questions - info@sfba.org

windsurfer-resurrection
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby windsurfer-resurrection » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:59 pm

Bumped from the third page so more people as possible see this important kite access issue.

windsurfer-resurrection
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby windsurfer-resurrection » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:53 pm

January 5th 2012 at the Ferry Building when there will be a public hearing before the Bay Conservation and Development Commission on the America's Cup and its impacts on recreation. A strong showing by the recreational community will stiffen the spine of BCDC, which was created to provide, and protect, access to the Bay.

User avatar
jakemoore
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2518
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:59 am
Kiting since: 2003
Gear: More wing than kite
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Oleander
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 294 times
Contact:

Re: SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby jakemoore » Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:01 am

tl,dr

Seriously, what sailor wouldn't want to host Americas Cup and feel pride for their city and nation?! Because traffic would be bad for a few days! BOO Fvcking HOO.

User avatar
PAFF
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu May 22, 2003 2:17 pm
Style: Frestyle and waves. Always unhookt
Brand Affiliation: Slingshot-Naish-Cabrinha-North-Best-Surftech.
Location: Waves or flat
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby PAFF » Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:39 am

I dont read 287 lines..

In one sentence. What is the problem?

loco4viento
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 1:00 am
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby loco4viento » Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:41 am

PAFF wrote:I dont read 287 lines.
The original post looks like the love child of PMU and Richard M. Just missing a few bold CAPS and a couple years of cut and paste.

windsurfer-resurrection
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby windsurfer-resurrection » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:46 am

jakemoore wrote:tl,dr

Seriously, what sailor wouldn't want to host Americas Cup and feel pride for their city and nation?! Because traffic would be bad for a few days! BOO Fvcking HOO.

This subject requires alot of reading comprehension.

All of June, July, August; three months during peak season.

The city is also evicting 77 small buisnesses on the waterfront.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1HAS34.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1LQO94.DTL

SBBeachbum
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:54 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SFBA letter to the city of San Francisco- Americas Cup

Postby SBBeachbum » Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:27 am

windsurfer-resurrection wrote:
jakemoore wrote:tl,dr

Seriously, what sailor wouldn't want to host Americas Cup and feel pride for their city and nation?! Because traffic would be bad for a few days! BOO Fvcking HOO.

This subject requires alot of reading comprehension.

All of June, July, August; three months during peak season.

The city is also evicting 77 small buisnesses on the waterfront.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1HAS34.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1LQO94.DTL
If you want support you better come down from your high horse and explain in one short paragraph what your problem is. Otherwise go piss off.


Return to “Kitesurfing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andrzej351, andylc, apollo4000, Bing [Bot], Chriz76, Dirk, funalex, Greenturtle, ham-er, i_love_storm, jannik, kitehub, Peter_Frank, Puddle Pirate, Tony, Vivo3d, Xtream, Yahoo [Bot] and 547 guests