BayAreaKiteboarding.com

There are two different comments, one is for the redesign plan, and another is for an exemption to a full EIR.


https://www.scribd.com/doc/307497799/Re ... rking-Area

https://www.scribd.com/doc/307719339/Dr ... ttachments


https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentFor ... ntID=72089

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentFor ... ntID=72088


Here are some example talking points from the Sailors perspective.
The NPS made a few revisions to there east beach parking and promenade redesign after the two meet and greet informational meetings at the east beach parking lot and a private meeting with the SFBA, the changes were some more parking and a better turn around west of the bathrooms. This is an improvement, but the entire plan has many flaws. On the weekends, you will really be hampered to find easy access parking for windsurfing and kite-boarding. The park service is trying to fast track this, the history of the original EIR is that San Francisco board sailors are original stake holders and east beach including the parking was to give sailors easy access to the beach. This money is meant for differed maintenance, not a redesign. This token 15 day comments period is disingenuous. Any redesign should require a full EIR. The NPS may be in violation of the CZMA and NEPA, plus any changes require BCDC approval. Paved area to increase by 50 percent. Turf planting for parking not thriving". Completely untrue...the back grass areas, where they have actually put in the slightest effort to water and aerate, are totally healthy. That gets a ton of parking volume too. The middle square to the east is a wasteland...but it's been ignored for at least a few years. Maybe put in a slight effort to maintain what you have? Not a shock that if you leave something to die, it dies...

"Inefficient parking layout...weekend needs". Very disingenuous. There are literally only about 6-8 days per YEAR when the place is totally full. Just the big holiday weekends. Rest of the year can be busy, but there is always room no matter what time you arrive. Who cares if the parking is "casual", as they say, if it's not *full*? Just imagine carrying your rig across 30 feet of promenade as apposed to the current 20 feet, with all the people and bicycles. The NPS says it will move congestion along, I say it will create more congestion.
All those preferred parking spots to on the west side of the parking lot will be in competition with pic-knickers and dog walkers. All the other parking is for tourist whom do not know better. It is not going to be easy to get your gear setup and carry it to a lawn area if you have to park in the main parking lot squeezed together. Not to mention numerous trips back and forth to your car. There is an agenda playing out here, to make this more people centrist, and anti car, the east beach was designed for multiple recreational use.

The drawing regarding the east limit of the beach is not correct. It doesn't correctly display the fenced off rip-rap dunes that extend further to the west, visible in the Google Earth photo.

The drawing appears to show the beach extending so far east that it would be accessible to most of the huge paved area which goes all the way to the existing Crissy Center. That eastern half of parking area would not be directly accessible to the beach.

They NPS needs to rethink the design of the parking at the east end of the lot. The way it is currently proposed, it is going to feel like a huge asphalt parking lot in front of a Target. Maybe they could convert the middle aisle into grass that could be used for rigging but also to make that area feel a little less "mean"

The NPS should use the money to fix the sewer line, maintain and fix the east beach bathrooms. Fix the drainage of the promenade, keeping it at it's current 20 foot width. And restore and maintain the current parking lawns and parking configuration.

Concerns about speeding in the parking lot can be fixed with speed bumps and stop signs at the intersections in the parking lot.

A sample letter: Hello,
you the National Park Service GGNRA were awarded centennial differed maintenance money with matching funds from the Haas Family trust, great.
Use it for differed maintenance, not for an ill thought out redesign.
The current configuration of the parking lot is well thought out in the original EIR of 1996.
There are legally binding covenants in this EIR that the current park management seem to be overlooking in a rush to use this money in 2016.
I like the current configuration. The park service has been negligent in it's maintenance of the grassy areas, I wonder if on purpose to help along someones agenda on their view of how crissy field east beach parking is supposed to look.
The grassy/dirt casual parking is wonderful, people/families park and pick-nick right by there car. I love it that there is lawn available were ever you park.
The east beach parking is only full about 8 days a year on holidays, etc.
Your plan will increase paved parking from 95,975 square feet to 140,010 square feet.
I want less paved and more grass like it already is.
Spend the 5 million on fixing the promenade with out widening it, this will only cause congestion of people loitering, it will not help move the flow of people, and bicycles.Fix the bathrooms and sewer line. Rejuvenate the lawns, put in some speed bumps, and a couple stop signs to slow it down.

The Park service is being sneaky by having a separate comment period asking for an categorical exclusion to doing an EIR saying this redesign will not have any significant impact.

Could you please comment to this:https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentFor ... ntID=72088

keep it simple like this:

This needs a full EIR you are violating key aspects of the original 1996 EIR.

I am against a categorical exclusion.

This is almost textbook change management. Step 1 make people feel as though their feedback is welcome.. Step 2..

Sample letter

I am saddened and disturbed by the proposed “deferred maintenance’ plan for the East Beach area of Crissy Field. The plan takes literally the lyrics “PAVED PARADISE AND PUT UP A PARKING LOT”

In fact this area of Crissy field was never intended for the sole purpose of parking. It was intended to be part of Crissy FIELD, a PARK, a RECREATION AREA, and a SOCIAL GATHERING SITE. The proposed plan suggests that the architects have limited knowledge of the area and how it is used.

This area is a WORLD class windsurfing and kiting site and is used for international events. The proposed site, obliterates much of the green area which is essential for rigging and equipment. The available green site proposed is completely inadequate and will also be in high demand by picnickers. The needs of windsurfers and kitesurfers have been completely ignored. One must park ADJACENT to a grassy area in order to have access to one’s vehicle for the equipment. The proposed plan is incompatible with the original mission statement and intended use design for the area and suggests that the area is solely there as parking for the promenade. This could not be further from the truth.

It is unfortunate that the original dune grass proposed for the area did not work out. There are other types of flora that could be considered such as dicondra repens which is drought and coastal tolerate, can handle heavy traffic and also will grow in sand or hard surface. The lack of maintenance of the area over the years has been appalling but not as appalling as the current proposal. Maintenance of the existing lawns is also an option. Drought has been cited as a reason not to do this however drought has not stopped the proposal of extensive lawn in the presidio overpass plan. Thus maintenance of the existing lawns should remain an option.

This proposal is UNACCEPTABLE and unless you work for greater compromise with the communities and especially the windsurfers and kitesurfers that utilize the area then you can be guaranteed significant pressure both from a community outpouring and legal angle to prevent this project from moving forward.


There is NO WAY this will pass from a legal perspective with an exclusion for a NEPA. This is MAJOR CONSTRUCTION of a massive parking lot in an area that was previously an open space / multi functional area.

FALSE C.8. Replacement in kind of minor structures and facilities with little or no change in location, capacity, or appearance.

FALSE C.18. Construction of minor structures, including small improved parking lots, in previously disturbed or developed areas.

Comment period ends April 22.

1. There is a net loss of 75 spaces on the west side of the lot. It is the area directly adjacent to the beach and where most of us park. With the removal of those 75 spaces, this area will be in very high demand by our community as well as dog walkers and picnickers. I don't really see a problem during the week but on the weekend, it will be very hard to park here.


2. The loss of 75 spaces is made up with a huge Walmart like parking lot at the east end of the lot. Aside from the unfriendly nature of this large parking lot, there is very little grass here. If you are unlucky enough to show up late on the weekend, you are going to be shlepping your gear back and forth across a busy parking lot to get to grass and eventually the beach. In a nutshell, this sucks and is unacceptable.


As mentioned above, we have been trying to work with the NPS on this but the accelerated schedule (they have to spend the money this year) is forcing a half baked plan forward. They are trying to use what is called a Categorical Exemption to avoid going through the normal environmental review process. One part of this document claims no impact on recreational use, which is just not true.

One day left to post a comment to the NPS.

No whining if you did not post and next year you can not find a place to park or set up your gear.

Tony Soprano wrote:One day left to post a comment to the NPS.

No whining if you did not post and next year you can not find a place to park or set up your gear.

Here is what I wrote:
I am pretty sure the scope of this project is beyond the authority of this group without full EIR approval. This needs a full EIR you are violating key aspects of the original 1996 EIR.

I am against a categorical exclusion.

Why would you want to fastrack such a critical piece of real estate? Any effort to do so will result in an investigation that will reveal any untoward motivations.


Signed,
Legally Blonde