sfba ac34 comments final

8/4/2019 SFBA AC34 Comments Final

1/8

1

August 15, 2011

Mr. Bill Wyko

Environmental Review OfficerPlanning Department, City of San Francisco

1650 Mission Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, CA [email protected]

Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 34th Americas 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

Americas 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 andrelated 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/ordirectly or indirectly impact the recreational uses of Windsurfing and/or Kiteboarding.

As sailors and kiters on San Francisco Bay, SFBA is excited about San Franciscos hosting of the

Americas Cup and believe it can be accomplished in a balanced manner.

SFBAs 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 FranciscoBay 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 tothe 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 YachtClub Beach and Fort Baker (Cavallo Point) during those periods of AC 34 activity in 2012 and 2013.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/8

2

SFBAs 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.,

BCDCs Bay Plan, the National Park Service and GGNRA, etc.) and SFBAs previous discussionswith the San Francisco Americas 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 and2013.

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 aminimum 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 Americas 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,


3/8

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 GoldenGate. 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 frequentCrissy 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 thatthe 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 effectsthat 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.


4/8

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 recreationaluses 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 animpact. 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 ofsitting-in-traffic, they should also work to mitigate the effect of restricting and prohibiting theexisting 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 prohibitionof 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 launchfacilities 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 Americas Cup race course would be within the Central

Bay. The Bay is a widely popular place for inwater recreation activities such as wind

surfing, kayaking, boating, and fishing. The Central Bay is generally bounded by the

RichmondSan 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 adverseeffects on recreational resources/facilities.


5/8

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 affectedby 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 proposedconstruction 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 environmentalresources 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 FranciscoBay 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 physicalchanges 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 shortterm disruption of access to a recreational facility, does notautomatically result in a finding of a significant recreational impact under CEQA if the public hasaccess to alternative, similar resources during that period.

Again, SFBA would like to remind the Lead Agency that the windsurfers and kiteboarders whofrequent 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 theDEIR 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 forregional planning and design of the AC34 event facilities, are intended in part to minimize disruption


6/8

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 theimplementation 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 potentiallysignificant impact related to recreation if it were to:

Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilitiessuch that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated;

Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreationalfacilities 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 impactsrelated 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.


7/8

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 DevelopmentCommission (BCDC), the Navigational Code that is the framework for Berkeleys 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 aswill 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 andthat 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 Legislaturedeclared:

Wateroriented recreational uses of San Francisco Bay, including sailboardingare ofgreat benefit to the public welfare of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Further goals, articulated under the States 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 andcompelling 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 andthe beach at the St. Francis Yacht Club. These are all public beaches to which these policies apply.


8/8

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 parksprovided they are clearly incidental to the park use...and do not obstruct public accessto and enjoyment of the Bay..."

In closing, SFBA maintains that windsurfing, kiteboarding and other recreational uses arefundamental 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

[email protected]

Cc: [email protected]@sfgov.org
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

sfba ac34 comments final

Documents