New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Post general kiteboarding discussion topics here!

Moderators: BayAreaKite, WindMuch

Re: New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby Aloha » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:09 pm

Cuteness must be a factor in SFBA's feasibility studies because that picture is adorable
User avatar
Aloha
Old School
Old School
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:45 pm
Location: CrissydroFoilmeda

Re: New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby OliverG » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:39 pm

ramsey wrote:seems to me if you want improvements at a specific site you need an advocate at that site. In the case of crissy and 3rd there are a handful of vocal advocates. All SFBA can do is attempt to facilitate the conversation with the parties involved and maybe add a few $$ to the project.


What improvements are needed and what issues are at hand at other sites is for the community who frequent those sites to decide.

It's ok, I'm not upset, I'm just saying they don't seem to have had much relevance to me in the past or presently, and if money is used to install dog showers at Crissy, I'm not renewing, that's all.

The dogs are really cute though...
User avatar
OliverG
Site Admin
Site Admin
SFBA Member
SFBA Member
 
Posts: 5322
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:03 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby sloughslut » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:46 pm

Tony Soprano wrote: Dogs must be on leash in parking lots and picnic areas.



But not in the shower? can they poop in the shower?
Riding used and closeout kites and boards from e-bay,craigslist,ikitesurf, and local surf shops.
User avatar
sloughslut
Resident
Resident
RVWA/SIKO Member
RVWA/SIKO Member
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:15 am
Location: Benicia

Re: New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby sloughslut » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:52 pm

Aloha wrote:Cuteness must be a factor in SFBA's feasibility studies because that picture is adorable


that pic reminds me of jail, a white dude a mexican dude and a black dude all waiting in the shower
Riding used and closeout kites and boards from e-bay,craigslist,ikitesurf, and local surf shops.
User avatar
sloughslut
Resident
Resident
RVWA/SIKO Member
RVWA/SIKO Member
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:15 am
Location: Benicia

Re: New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby Tony Soprano » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:06 pm

Hey, no SFBA officer is getting payed, it is all volunteers. They represent our user group to many city, county, state and Federal Agencies. It also provides a way for different agencies to reach out to us and have someone to contact when something comes up.

Bayareakite has been very good in helping east bay sailing sites going smoothly with organized beach cleanups etc.

The shower deal I am sure will not plaese everyone, but it was critical and politicly expedient in working with the NPS and other user groups, and it is just a small loan that will be payed back to SFBA and it was approved democraticly by the board members.

This is my last post on the matter. I was just trying to be informative....out of here.

I am posting two example letters from 2010 as a representation of the SFBA efforts on our behalf, there are others, but this is what I found online first.

September 10, 2010

Mr. Bill Wycko
Environmental Review Officer
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Treasure Island / Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project – Case No. 2007.0903E - Comments and Questions on the DEIR

Dear Mr. Wycko:

After many years of public meetings and verbal assurances regarding both the interim and future uses of Treasure Island, the San Francisco Boardsailing Association (Boardsailing = Windsurfing + Kiteboarding) hereby submits comments and questions that we would like to see addressed regarding the “Environmentally Superior Alternative” chosen as the preferred alternative in the DEIR referenced above.

We appreciate the time and cooperation extended over the years by City officials and other stakeholders in incorporating our long-term vision for boardsailing into the Treasure Island Redevelopment Plan. However, because the northern end of Treasure Island is one of the premier, world-class boardsailing locations in the United States, the complete omission of any specific reference to interim and future boardsailing access and facilities in the DEIR raise cause for concern.

One of the premises upon which we have based our access discussions has been the “Proposed Actions and Alternatives” as stated in the “Transfer and Reuse Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIR 2006”, which states in Chapter 2-8:

Recreation Facilities
Several recreation facilities continue to be used on Treasure Island as a venue for regional sports activities. These include the baseball field which serves as the home field for the San Francisco Little League, including regional competitions; the soccer field located in the middle of the Island, which is used by soccer and rugby teams from around the Bay Area; the Great Lawn; and various other open space recreational facilities such as parks, trails and ball-fields. Boardsailors and users of other water oriented recreational crafts use the shoreline of Treasure Island, launching from the boat ramp at the northern corner and landing regularly along the northern shoreline of the island.

Based upon previous experiences with EIR decision documents we believe it necessary that the public components of the Plan be clearly summarized and articulated in the Final EIR for them to carry any weight during the development process. The objective of an EIR is that it look for adequacy and completeness and a good faith effort of full disclosure. Our impression of the project scope presented in this DEIR is one of a “market driven” development, with little priority placed upon the implementation of public improvements so frequently presented during planning discussions.

While our expectation is that the draft “Design for Development for Treasure and Yerba Buena Islands” (“Design for Development”) will be formally adopted in connection with the Redevelopment Plan, it is also our understanding that the Design for Development (D4D) document will exist as a guideline for future “Island” development, more or less in place of building and zoning codes as applied in non-redevelopment. As such, the D4D is more of a guideline for Island development and should not be misconstrued as law. To be more specific, “Section 2:: T1 Public Open Space” of the D4D states in the Standards Column that “T1.6.5.9 – Two loading areas and amenities for boardsailing shall be provided in two locations near parking areas.” While we applaud this description, either this type of specificity needs to be included in the final EIR, or the D4D needs to be adopted as is, and as an appendix to the EIR such that it carries the same force of law. In no section of the DEIR do you find significant discussion of Public Open Space and/or its environmental impact, positive or negative.

While we understand that the substantial downturn in the housing market complicates the
City’s and the project applicant’s ability to provide improved access during the initial stages of construction, we believe that the DEIR should specifically describe incremental access and phasing of Public Open Space and Facilities.

In addition, mandates of the Mac-Ateer Petris Act provide "maximum feasible public access consistent with the project" to apply to all and interim stages of construction as well. Presently, windsurfers, fishermen, walkers, and kayaks use the levee road and launch from the Island. We think that those users should be able to have improved use of the existing facilities, which can be accomplished without any construction, but merely by reopening the parking lot adjacent to the launching ramp. Such options should also be address in the DEIR.


In Summary, please address the following questions:

1) Why is there complete omission of any specific reference to interim and future boardsailing access and facilities in the DEIR?

2) Why is there no reference to the “Proposed Actions and Alternatives” as stated in the “Transfer and Reuse Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIR 2006”, Chapter 2-8?


3) Why does the DEIR not provide specific project scope for Public Open Space and/or its environmental impact, positive or negative?

4) Why does the DEIR not specifically describe “maximum feasible public access consistent with the project" to apply to all and interim stages of construction, including incremental access and phasing of all Public Open Space and Facilities during project development?


In closing, the DEIR does not include the specific depiction of public access that had been agreed upon in earlier versions of the plan. While that detail is included in the D4D, plans and graphics should be part of the Final EIR. The Final EIR should make it clear that part of the long term plan for the 300 acres of parkland is the specific provision for continued and improved access to the water.


Sincerely,

signed

William Robberson, President
San Francisco Boardsailing Association

*******************************



September 10, 2010

Ms. Ann Buell
State of California Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612

Subject: Comments on the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

Dear Ms. Buell:

The San Francisco Boardsailing Association (SFBA – Windsurfing & Kiteboarding) submits the following comments on the Bay Area Water Trail Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The State of California Coastal Conservancy (SCC) has long had a mandate of improving access to the coast, and over time it has created significant enhancements enjoyed by many. To our disappointment, however, much like the initial Water Trail (WT) EIR, this Revised EIR also does not meet its main objective of adequacy and completeness in its good faith effort of full disclosure.

Overall, the EIR provides for a rather timid approach of adding existing Bay Area Windsurfing and Kiteboarding sites to the Water Trail, treating existing sites as if they were expansions into sensitive areas of the Bay rather than as an opportunity to educate an existing group of users. Additionally, no improvements such as restrooms or outdoor showers are possible with this EIR, and the process for adding existing sites to the Water Trail is so unwieldy that we question whether many site managers have the patience and resources during these difficult times for local government’s recreation budgets. As a result, we believe SCC risks losing the support of the people who should be considered partners, constituents and targets for your own education efforts.

List of HOS’s Omits Many of the Existing Sites Used by Windsurfers and Kiteboarders

The EIR notes incorrectly on page 2-19 that only sixteen (16) of the one hundred and twelve (112) sites in the WT plan are windsurfing and/or kiteboarding sites, and a number of these are excluded from the list of HOS’s. Thus, the listing of existing windsurfing and kiteboarding sites will likely be required to go through an extensive designation process, or more likely, continue to be used without any potential grant funding through the water trail or any associated stewardship or education efforts.

The following popular windsurfing sites are included as HOS’s in Table 2.3.2-1: Berkeley Marina (A26), Emeryville Marina, San Leandro Marina, Crown Memorial Beach in Alameda, Pt. Isabel, Shimada and Vincent Parks in Richmond, Candlestick Point, Crissy Field, Third Avenue, two sites in Benicia (Matthew Turner Park and the Ninth Street Launch and beach) and Coyote Point Beach. This is only thirteen (13) of the twenty-four (24) sites that are currently in use, and includes only four (4) sites used by kiteboarders — Crown Memorial, Third Avenue, Crissy Field, and Vincent Park.

The Revised EIR also excludes from HOS consideration existing windsurfing and kiteboarding launches at Albany Beach, Point Emery, Treasure Island, Rod and Gun, Larkspur Landing, Remillard Park, San Quentin, the Cove near Presidio Yacht Club and Rodeo Beach. Adding the Treasure Island site at this time may be difficult, since it is still considered Navy property.

Our members use all of these sites, and including them at this time would promote educational efforts that would decrease, not increase, any potential impacts. As currently designed, the SCC would adopt a plan that would defer educational efforts indefinitely and perhaps permanently if local governments find the requirements too onerous. As a result of the constrained set of HOSs, the Water Trail includes no sites for windsurfing or kiteboarding in either Marin County or Santa Clara County, where a number of our members live and/or work and have pioneered sites on their own. To these users, the Water Trail effort provides no benefit and thus sacrifices the ability to reach existing members who sail from these sites.

Trailhead Designation Process is Unwieldy and Lacks Transparency

It is frustrating for Non-Motorized Small Boat (NMSB) users that five years after the State Legislature declared that:

Water-oriented recreational uses of the San Francisco Bay … are of great benefit to the public welfare…

and established policies of

…protecting endangered and threatened species, and species of special concern…

and encouraged SCC to undertake projects during the period when the plan is being prepared, that we find ourselves with another Draft EIR that will not actually designate any of the existing sites. In the case of many of the existing windsurfing and kiteboarding sites, it seems to require an extensive and expensive further planning process, requiring “much more detailed Trailhead Plans…with site-specific CEQA review.” If local governments are discouraged by these requirements, these sites will remain in use, but without the benefits of education and user awareness. This seems to be counter to SCC’s objectives.

New Sites are Needed

Many of our windsurfers and kiteboarders are interested in windsurfing after work in areas close to their work sites. In fact, many of our members (including your’s truly) have chosen specific locations within the Bay Area as their home and workplace specifically for the world-class windsurfing and kiteboarding sites and opportunities, and a good number have chosen professions and employers based upon the ability to windsurf and kiteboard in the mid-to-late afternoons when the wind is at its strongest. Many of our members are familiar with the provisions of the California Constitution, and often view launching their boards or kites as a fundamental right, as Section 4 of Article 10 of the Constitution 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.

When no workable process to formally establish new sites is available, our users have used existing segments of the Bay Trail, or beaches or other access points to reach the Bay. The following recent experience with kiteboard launching in Corte Madera marsh should illustrate the potential concerns of not providing for our members needs:

The California Department of Fish and Game (CA DFG) manages the Corte Madera marsh as a wildlife refuge. Their web site includes the following language: “Only lightweight hand-carried boats may be launched within the reserve.” Local kiteboarders began to launch their kites from the marsh, believing that their lightweight hand-carried boards fit within that definition. However, the spreading of kite-lines in preparation for launch affected about half an acre of marsh grass.

This experience illustrates the need for new sites to accommodate the growing sport of kiteboarding, and that absent suitable sites… users will pioneer new sites. Clearly the incident in Corte Madera marsh did not occur as a result of having designated an existing site part of the Water Trail; but instead because the existing sites were not considered safe by kiteboarders. If the SCC establishes an unwieldy process that does not meet user needs, the result could be something that none of us can influence or manage as users pioneer new sites and regulators try to respond.


Sincerely,

signed

William Robberson, President
San Francisco Boardsailing Association

billrobberson@sfba.org
Tony Soprano
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 7:29 pm

Re: New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby OliverG » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:30 pm

Tony Soprano wrote:Hey, no SFBA officer is getting payed, it is all volunteers. They represent our user group to many city, county, state and Federal Agencies. It also provides a way for different agencies to reach out to us and have someone to contact when something comes up.

Bayareakite has been very good in helping east bay sailing sites going smoothly with organized beach cleanups etc.

The shower deal I am sure will not plaese everyone, but it was critical and politicly expedient in working with the NPS and other user groups, and it is just a small loan that will be payed back to SFBA and it was approved democraticly by the board members.

This is my last post on the matter. I was just trying to be informative....out of here.


It is informative, if it is the form of a loan, that's fine. And kudos to you for all your efforts and everything you do, many of us know you put a lot of time effort into things asking nothing in return. Don't stop. My response is no criticism of your efforts nor any criticism of the SFBA as far as BAK is "officially" concerned.

My post was(is) my personal opinion that the SFBA providing a dog shower for dog owners is ridiculous. I love dogs, they're awesome! In many ways, better than people.

Official BAK position: "SFBA is good, it has its role, we appreciate their unpaid efforts, support it."
User avatar
OliverG
Site Admin
Site Admin
SFBA Member
SFBA Member
 
Posts: 5322
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:03 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby sc-surfer » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:43 pm

Way to back pedal Ollie. Ever considered politics?

:-) :-) :-)

But seriously, thanks for all you do here at BAK thanks to SFBA as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
User avatar
sc-surfer
Resident
Resident
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:19 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby OliverG » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:58 pm

Ha, well, glad someone noticed! |}{+
I like to be able to post my personal opinions here sometimes, but am the same time need to moderate myself and honor my role to lend support to worthwhile things and what is in the interest of the greater good for the community and sport. So, I guess like politics sometimes... _>:<
User avatar
OliverG
Site Admin
Site Admin
SFBA Member
SFBA Member
 
Posts: 5322
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:03 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby Loscocco » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:03 pm

sloughslut wrote:that pic reminds me of jail, a white dude a mexican dude and a black dude all waiting in the shower


Sounds like you have some memories there...
My Photography ==> http://www.Loscocco.com
Kites:Ocean Rodeo: 2014 Razor
Boards:Ocean Rodeo: 5' 7" Surf, Spotz Hydrofoil
Wetsuit:Hyperflex: AMP 5/3MM Fullsuit
Harness:Ocean Rodeo: Sessions2
User avatar
Loscocco
Old School
Old School
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:08 pm
Location: San Francisco California

Re: New Dog Shower at Crissy Field

Postby Loscocco » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:04 pm

Where is the Asian dog?
My Photography ==> http://www.Loscocco.com
Kites:Ocean Rodeo: 2014 Razor
Boards:Ocean Rodeo: 5' 7" Surf, Spotz Hydrofoil
Wetsuit:Hyperflex: AMP 5/3MM Fullsuit
Harness:Ocean Rodeo: Sessions2
User avatar
Loscocco
Old School
Old School
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:08 pm
Location: San Francisco California

PreviousNext

Return to General Kiteboarding Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest