BayAreaKiteboarding.com

http://www.sfba.org/blog/sfba-access-up ... r-feb-2018

Dear Community
As you may know SFBA members are always hard at work on keeping track on access to our various kite boarding and windsurfing sites. Here is a quick update on some of them
​Issue: Corte Madera Marsh kite boarding access
Problem Description
Golden gate Bridge District which owns the land and then deed it to the State department of fish and
wildlife. The Audubon Society at the March 2017 Corte Madera town council meeting stated that they
are fine with no pedestrian access. The kite-boarders and most dog walkers are using unauthorized
public access not included in the existing City of Corte Madera pedestrian access easement. The Area
north of the northern drainage channel is already state fish and wildlife land that is off limits. The Corte
Madera town easement allocation as it is, does not work for kite boarders. But after the levee is
breached, it will naturally keep more people out. I hope we can continue to use the northern levee/dike
to get to the water from Industrial drive.
What SFBA is doing about this
SFBA is working with Ben Botkin- water trail planner, Association of Bay area governments/
Metropolitan transportation commission to maintain and enhance kite- boarder access at this location.
The SFBA mapped and described how the kite boarders are using this area, parking, trail path to water,
for a future EIR scoping period.
​Issue: Rod and Gun Public Bathrooms
Problem Description
The City made an application to remove the public bathroom
What SFBA is doing about this
SFBA contacted Public Works Engineer to inform and remind him that his application was denied by
BCDC and ensure intentions are followed. Got response back that Board Sailors will be considered in
the relocation of the bathroom
​Issue: Brick Yard in San Rafael – Land ownership concern
Problem Description
Not clear who the land belongs to and if people are allowed to kite-board
What SFBA is doing about this
SFBA located land owner and understanding is as long as kiters are behaving ok. No problem. Message
is to stay respectfulIssue: Upper Third Ave Launch Erosion
​Issue: Upper Third Ave Launch Erosion
Problem Description
Third Ave in Foster City, upper launch beach is quickly eroding and soon will not be able to host kites.
What SFBA is doing about this
SFBA is working closely with one of the best coastal engineering firms in California on a conceptual design to rehabilitate the Third Ave beach area for both natural resource protection and existing recreational uses. The conceptual project, which is in very early stages of discussion with authorities, would create a living shoreline along the City of Foster City and County of San Mateo coastline, which should provide resiliency from sea level rise; restore, enhance and protect wetland/wildlife habitat; and rehabilitate the water contact recreational uses (e.g., Kite staging and launch) lost to erosion over the last 15 years.
​Issue: Construction in Berkeley threatens sailing season
Problem Description
After many years, Berkeley started construction of improvements in the South Basin in Berkeley
Marina. Those improvements would relocate and improve the rigging area, pave the parking lot, and
provide a bathroom. But construction has lagged, with completion of all improvements not likely until
April or May. The City did not include a rigging area and pathway to the dock that it had promised in
meetings with windsurfers, and allowed the contractor to use a portion of the western parking lot, so
only about 40 parking spaces are available for all users.
What SFBA is doing about this
SFBA is working with local windsurfers to meet with the City and secure a temporary rigging area and
pathway to the docks.
What you can do to help
Attend the upcoming meeting of the Parks and Waterfront Commission on February 14, 2018, at the
Frances Albrier Center at 7:00 p.m. and express your concerns for access.
https://www.mapquest.com/us/california/ ... -372190745
​Issue: Park plan for Gateway Park
Problem Description
After completion of construction of the Bay Bridge, Caltrans and the East Bay Regional Park District
have issued a draft EIR for development of a park at the base of the Bay Bridge. However, it is not
clear whether the Park Plan, developed in 2012, provides protection for the kite boarding that goes on
at Radio Beach, known to kiteboarders as Royce Beach. Provision of a kayak launch from the sandy
beach was specifically rejected for habitat reasons.
What SFBA is doing about this
SFBA is working with the Bay Water Trail staff and Bay Access, the group that sponsored the Water
Trail legislation to clarify conflicting information in the document and make sure that e area and
pathway to the docks.
What you can do to help
Review copies of the EIR, available at this site: https://mtc.ca.gov/gateway-park If you have
kited from the site, or learned, comment by March 15 about the need to preserve this important
kiteboarding site.

SFBA official letter comment for Toll plaza EIR.

Tomer Petel
San Francisco Boardsailing Association
Peter Lee
Assistant Director, Bay Area Toll Authority
375 Beale St, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subject: Draft EIR for Gateway Park
Dear Mr. Lee:
I represent San Francisco Boardsailing Association, an organization dedicated to preserving and
expanding access to the waters of the State, and particularly to San Francisco Bay. We have concerns
about the manner in which the subject EIR has been prepared. While there is encouraging language in the
document, specifically, the statement on page ES-3 that “Radio Beach would remain accessible to the
public as under current conditions”, there are a number of other sections in the document that raise
concerns and might actually undermine this promise.
KITE BOARDING AT RADIO BEACH SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
SETTING
Section 15125 of the CEQA guidelines (14CCR Section 15125) provides:
(a) An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the
project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation
is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced , from both a local and regional
perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which
a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental setting
shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project
and its alternatives….
(c) Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts . Special
emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be
affected by the project. The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of
the project to be considered in the full environmental context. (emphasis added)
SFBA members have been using Radio Beach, which we refer to as Royce Beach, for over a decade.
Royce Beach is a launching point for windsurfing and kiting on San Francisco Bay. It is particularly
valuable for those new to kiteboarding because it has a sandy beach, and the water offshore is shallow for
several hundred yards. This makes it possible for those who are learning to be able to re-launch their kite
after falling, or wade to shore safely. There are only a handful of sites around San Francisco Bay with
these characteristics.
Royce Beach is used throughout the sailing season. Sailors park near the access road and spread their
lines along the beach. Up to 20 sailors have been known to use the beach at the busiest times. So access to
both the sandy beach and parking are essential for “Radio Beach to remain accessible to the public as
under current conditions.”
There are two fundamental reasons that the use of Royce/Radio beach by kiteboarders should be
acknowledged and discussed in the EIR. First, recognizing an established use means that mitigation is not
required under CEQA for that use to continue. There are a number of interest groups who reflexively
oppose recreational use such as boardsailing, kayaking, beach combing, and even fishing. They have
characterized such activities as project impacts, rather than as part of the existing setting, and have
insisted that such activities must be banned or restricted. The facts do not support this world view. Our
members have used Radio beach for windsurfing, at least occasionally, for over twenty years. During the
past 8 years since the Gateway Plan was first proposed but bridge construction was underway, our
members discovered this site as a premier kite boarding launch and have used it throughout the sailing
season. There were no improvements made by either the East Bay Regional Park District who leases the
site, or the Port of Oakland, who owns the site, that were necessary to encourage this use. The use was
open and notorious, and relied on our members understanding of the Constitutional provision in
California that encourages access to the water. As such, this use is an established part of the
environmental setting.
The other reason that kite boarding needs to be recognized in the environmental setting is that established
in Subsection (c) --so that the impact of the project on the existing recreational use can be assessed. There
are a number of different provisions in the EIR where the failure to recognize existing uses leads to
inadequate analysis. First, also at ES-3, is this sentence: “Radio Beach, an existing area on the north side
of I-80, would be for limited, passive recreation.“ We can think of few activities more active than kite
boarding, and we are concerned that this language will be used here, as it has in other places, to argue for
restricting kite boarding access. Second, the EIR calls for provision of only 5 parking spaces at Radio
Beach (p. 2-27). There is no comparison of that proposal to existing uses by kiteboarders, people fishing,
and people strolling on the beach to be able to conclude whether that is sufficient to protect the existing
uses under current conditions. Next, the EIR calls for fencing of portions of the backland at Radio beach
with a 6 to 8 foot fence. Depending on its location, that fence could damage kites being launched, and
thus interfere with existing uses. Finally, the EIR contemplates using portions of the site as mitigation for
other transportation projects. While no specific concepts are included that delineate specific mitigation
projects that might interfere with recreation, the EIR also lacks analysis to identify areas where such uses
would be inconsistent with recreation, and thus would trigger the projections of Section 4(f) of the
Transportation Act.
We believe that none of these projects can be cleared under an EIR that failed to establish existing levels
of recreational use and determine whether those projects would have significant adverse impacts on that
use.
THE EIR GIVES ONLY CURSORY ANALYSIS TO RECREATIONAL POLICIES, PARTICULARLY
THOSE IN THE BAY PLAN
The Draft EIR virtually ignores the scoping comments submitted by BCDC. To be sure, BCDC is
responsible for protecting and enhancing public access to the water under the MacAteer-Petris Act and the
Water Trail legislation. In discussion such as that found in Section 66602 of the Act, the Legislature
declares uses like water-oriented recreation “essential to the public welfare.” That section further notes
that “existing public access to the Bay is inadequate and additional access should be provided. Bay plan
maps call for the development of Gateway Shoreline Park to include non-motorized small boat launching.
BCDC’s scoping comments reinforced this with the following language:
that “…sites within designated waterfront parks that provide optimal conditions for water-oriented
creational uses should, where appropriate, be enhances for those uses… [and at a minimum] Sandy
beaches should be preserved … for recreational use…
While the EIR discussed, somewhat briefly, access for kayaks it made no mention of access for kite
boarding. The site proposed in the EIR for launching kayaks may well be suitable for such purpose, but is
completely unsuitable for kite boarding. That sport relies on sufficient area to stretch out lines in
preparation for launching a kite, and water with sufficient depth and wind to sail. Neither is available at
the proposed pier.
The lack of recognition of kite boarding use in the existing environmental setting, and the cursory analysis
given the BCDC scoping comments means that the EIR fails completely to recognize the one location at
the park site that provides optimum conditions for kite boarding, and thus should be preserved if not
enhanced.
With much Thanks
Tomer Petel
President, SFBA