America's Cup Environmental Impact Report

[rigatoni]

http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?recordid=45&page=2719

If anybody is up for some really mind numbing reading, this will surely take the cake. Needless to say, there is no mention of mitigation measures for loss of recreational access to the Bay. Page 3-56 in Volume 1 shows the proposed venues for Crissy which will include fixed grandstands, merchandising facilities, and exhibition. Most of it will be to the west on that large field but some of it will be in the current parking area.

A few other key items.
1. The regatta they will be holding next year will be based on the Marina Green and will impact us starting next year.
2. Traffic is going to be an absolute nightmare on the north side of the city during this event. Think Fleet Week for 2 months.
3. The sailing will be going on till 5pm rather than the original 3:30 pm discussed.
4. They are outlining spectating at Treasure Island as well so sailing there will undoubtedly be impacted.
5. I briefly spoke to the events coordinator at the GGNRA about another issue and they are talking about banning traffic entirely in both the East Beach Parking area and along Mason Street on race days.

In addition to trying to leverage some mitigation funds to improve the TI launch, somebody at Crissy the other day also mentioned the possibility of some temporary storage facilities across Mason Street in one of the office building sheds that the Exploratorium will be vacating when the move pretty soon.

Boy this is going to be a nightmare. Maybe if our dear friend Eddy parks himself off the coast again the next two summers, it might not matter

[andydavis]

as predicted

[seablind]

See 5.2-25 of EIR:

"These uses would be a departure from the open space recreational use of Crissy Field during typical days when a major event, such as Fleet Week, is not taking place. Instead, these uses would be similar to those of major events, but intensified and over a longer period of time. In effect, Crissy Field’s open recreational uses would be limited to the areas not occupied by these temporary uses. During days of peak attendance, it is likely that typical recreational uses could not be accommodated within Crissy Field, due to the numbers of spectators that would occupy the area. This would be considered a minor, temporary change in use. Please see Section 5.11 for an analysis of impacts to recreational resources."

So far, based on my review of 5.11, it appears that the analysis of impacts is that recreational users will find other places for their recreation, so there's no impact to mitigate.

We need to mobilize regarding providing a response before August 25. Is SFBA working on something?

[xander.arch]

Let's not loose sight of the fact that the cup is just plain awesome for San Francisco, the bay and sailing in general. Instead of rattling swords let's find a way to tap into this stoke. I'm personally thinking about getting some formula gear so I can cruise near the big cats.

The bay is going to be on full display for the cup. We have great opportunities to showcase our awesome sport. Let's be creative, flexible and positive in how we reach out. This will go a long way towards elevating windsurfing overall.

[isobars]

[mac]

Interesting commentary. This is a difficult issue, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is our instinctive desire as sailors to support sailing. First, people visiting the shoreline to watch the races are a form of recreation, and their is no superior rights for on the water recreation (windsurfing, kiting, SUP, kayaking) to viewing. Thus, we have no right to really expect to find a parking place or have only moderate levels of congestion. San Francisco is well within their discretion choosing to invite different people to the waterfront.

Second, the big issue for us is the actual closure of the water area during racing. Races are planned for a 1 to 2 mile by 2 to 3 mile box, finishing downwind in the premium viewing areas. This forces crossing and improves views for marketing. But they plan to get approvals to close access to the water for all not involved. This includes windsurfing access, possibly out to the gate and north to Marin county. They have not analyzed this in any detail, and that flaw in the document does give us some leverage. We do have protections written into the California constitution and state laws, and SFBA will do what we can to wring some mitigation out of the City. Right now their races are scheduled to end about 4:00, and it is not clear whether they will clear the security zones quickly enough to be able to windsurf/kite after work. That is the crux of the mitigation question.

Third, this project has big juice behind it. Both Pelosi and Feinstein are willing to squeeze the shoes of the National Park Service, which owns the property where most of us get access. While a week of congestion and limitations wouldn't be so different than the big boat races, the schedule of races essentially kills most of a full season of sailing from Crissy, and the facilities they want to build means it will be back.

Fourth, the City cut a lousy deal with Ellison, and he plans to make the most of privatizing the waterfront, both now and into the future. I really have no problem with congestion and new users, and competing for parking. It is quite another matter to set up private, for pay, viewing areas in public parks and parking lots. Sports marketing is here to stay, and this is one of the really ugly aspects. As I understand it, little comes back from Ellison to provide long term benefits to public access to offset the virtual complete closure during races.

Finally, while we had hoped to have some improvements to Treasure Island, it won't be easy. We met with Navy, and they will not turn loose of the existing parking lot in time for improved access as an alternative to Crissy during the races. There is room adjacent to the vacant buildings, and demolition of one or both of those buildings, paving a small lot and minor improvements, might fix things. Right now we have commented on the EIR, and will be trying to see what the City is willing to do. We may need some significant turnout by windsurfers, kiters, etc. at the permit hearings.

Jim McGrath
SFBA vice president

[rigatoni]

If you skim through the EIR, the impact to the northern edge of the city will be massive and as Jim has pointed out, this is a billionaire backed steamroller. The impacts go way beyond just getting windsurfer/kitesurfer access to the bay. If you live in the Marina, this all summer long nightmare is going to really bum you out (parking, traffic, congestion, etc)

As a sailor, I am enthusiastic about the America's Cup in SF but the impact is beyond comprehension and not just for a couple of weeks but for almost two months. Crissy Field is part of the National Park system and it will be given over to a private enterprise not just to erect grandstands but for private functions, merchandising, vending, etc. Regardless of your politics, this is going to really rub a lot of people the wrong way.

The America's Cup Organizing Committee is going to need to be a bit more flexible in their approach or despite who wins the challenge, it may be the very last time it is here. I don't mind accepting some inconveniences but would like some ability to sail Crissy after the races in the late afternoon or use an improved launch at Treasure Island and avoid the mess altogether. Seems like there is an ability to make this happen and still execute the races. Maybe shorten the races from 7 to 5 weeks might help as well.

[andydavis]

[rigatoni]

Isobars,

My argument (shared by the SFBA) has been that given the futility of trying to sail at Crissy during the races, we should see if there are mitigation funds to improve the launch at Treasure Island. A former Navy base, TI sits in the middle of the bay and especially during August and September, has some of the best sailing in SF and would be out of the race course altogether. It is a 25 minute drive from Crissy.

The long term redevelopment of Treasure Island calls for improvements to the launch area as part of an island wide redevelopment but my sense is that those improvements are at least 5-10 years out. The Navy is still doing remediation of toxics and commandeered the parking area we used to use; but the current alternate parking isn't too shabby but could probably handle a maximum of 30 sailors. The biggest problem at TI is getting in and out of the water. A walk down a foot busting concrete boat ramp and then a body drag around a jetty. Coming back usually involves a 10 minute swim back to the ramp. A couple of concrete ramps in the breakwater upwind of the jetty would be a relatively inexpensive mitigation cost and make TI a safer and more popular alternative to Crissy.

[MalibuGuru]

Wow Andy, Let's eat the rich. However the amazing sailing technology and thousands of jobs created by America's Cup in terms of boat builders, architects, designers, caterers, etcetera might help the 12% un-employed in Cali.

In addition, X's attitude of showcasing sailing, and possibly windsurfing might actually help our sport from extinction. The fact that they even had to do an EIR is pretty sad from my perspective. If it were more than just one summer of inconvenience, I might be pissed off.

I love Crissy, and you locals should look to this as an opportunity to get everyone out on the water to showcase our sport. Let's hope it'll be nuckin next summer.