SFBA Comments re Treasure Island preferred project alternati

[Tony Soprano]

SFBA Comments re Treasure Island preferred project alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Report


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

[Bulldog]

Great to see SFBA standing up for our rights as stakeholders. If you haven't joined yet, go to their website and sign up.

Next we need a few manufacturers to step up and fund a national windsports advocacy group to protect our access in places governed by the state and feds (OB, Tuba, Waddell, etc.).

You think it's pointless? The national kayaker's assocation last week finally won access to a waterfall in a state park in Pennsylvania that they had been prohibited from jumping in a kayak for 20 years. There's no guarantee that we can protect access if we're organized, but guaranteed if we don't get organized it's impossible.

[Greg]

Word!!
L.M.G.

[maxsteamer]

I would like to thank (William Robberson) of the SFBA for a Excellent retort to the draft. If we don't (Organize) the developers will fight for every inch of shoreline as they well know that seaside land use is big money.

Max be with you I have a new name for the island,.. ( Barnacle Bill's Island)

[amir]

Was there a response to the SFBA to this letter?

Looked at the revised draft plan (4/5/2011)
http://www.sftreasureisland.org/ftp/dev ... evised.pdf

Page 73 has
"Loading areas and amenities for boardsailing shall be provided in two locations near parking areas. "

and the pic on page 28 shows the Sailboard Staging area.

Otherwise, no specific mention or discussion of kiteboarding or windsurfing.

[Greg]

I dont think it's a good idea to IMPROVE the launch (FOR KITERS) at T.I. , I say KEEP IT REAL! and BLOODY!! and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT!!!!
As it is, Natural selection has kept the KOOK FACTOR to a MINIMUM- (meaning it's ridden by VERY FEW, and thats the way it SHOULD BE and the way I LIKE IT! #-o )

T.I. is NOT a place to make NICE for kiters UNLESS there is a SAFETY SYSTEM IN PLACE (365) that DOES NOTTTT INVOLVE calling the C.G.. [-X [-X [-X

Personally I think there SHOULD BE a CHARGE for USING THE C.G. SERVICE, something like $100 for the first pick up, $250 for the second and $1000 MINIMUM for every RESCUE there after!!! :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Yes- THATS KEEPING IT REAL-
Gregory Burton Boyington

[Loscocco]

Having lived here on Treasure island for the past 10 years i agree with LMG that this place should not be made too easy to kite from since there are way too many things to go wrong and the only direction from here is off the island with the strong currents and winds.
I prefer to not kite here even though i see perfect wind out my window almost every day for just those reasons.

[kitenaked]

a nice access would be great either way.

The idea to not improve the launch in an attempt to prevent people using it would really suck when those experienced guys get hurt because of their idea not to improve the launch.

i see the point, but even the best have their shitty days. Anyone getting hurt sucks.

[Greg]

The launch IS difficult but not nearly as DANGEROUS as the OFTEN UNPREDICTABLE WIND and RIPS, etc, etc...- (Oh did I forget to mention the ALWAYS OFFSHORE factor!) If you break down off T.I. your chances of making it back to shore "unassisted" are VERY-VERY SLIM!!

I believe, making the T.I. launch more INVITING to the general kiting population IS VERY SHORT SITED indeed!!!

For THOSE REASONS- T.I. should NOT BE RIDDEN by people WITHOUT a "PROPER" backup system READY AND WAITING-
IE- boat, ski, etc.. (with a driver)

If the C.G. is "THE ONLY" back up plan, someone will eventually DIE off T.I.. and thats a of FACT of life (and DEATH)-

If anyone REALLY WANTS to kite T.I., PLEASE call Capt. John

[OliverG]

I agree for the simple reason that over the years, the sport keeps growing and there are more people with limited experience showing up at various launches because 1) It's windy and 2) It's a 'kite spot'. Think of the last 3 years at Sherman - more and more people showing up, many somewhat clueless and/or arrogant (but we can help them instead of reacting negatively, hopefully), thus problems, community unrest and injuries have occurred.

TI is offshore, risky and troublesome. The launch is on the leeward end and point of the island - if anything goes wrong (gear failure, lost board, or as simple as a downed kite with water resting in the canopy that won't relaunch, fouled lines, etc.), the fact is you are very unlikely to get things sorted out on your own and relying on the CG in any way, is, IMHO, lame and risky.

The idea to not improve the launch in an attempt to prevent people using it would really suck when those experienced guys get hurt because of their idea not to improve the launch.

The problem is any improvement here addressing kiting needs is essentially promoting and encouraging kiting here, which is not really in the best interest of the kiting public. A handful of us used to kite here regularly here years ago, and we all have had harrowing and dangerous experiences here with some stories to tell. It would be irresponsible to promote the sport here at this leeward, point location with the wind patterns, tides and currents.