myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Resurface Crissy Field Promenade and Reconfigure East Beach
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Southwest USA, Hawaii, Mexico
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
poussin



Joined: 14 Sep 2000
Posts: 191

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your input everyone.
After re-reading all of your comments, it seems to make a lot more sense to
leave things as they are AND put the money into maintaining what exists.
As Matt said, neglect has lead to the current poor state of the east parking,
as well as the less than optimal condition of the grass area just east of the bathrooms.
A little effort here will go a long way.
In addition to that, if they were to actually push forward with this, imagine how long it would take and would shut down the area until work is complete.
I'm going to post my comments today regarding this and push for better maintenance of what exists. A much simpler/ less costly solution.
Thanks Matt, Rigatoni and Riptide and everyone else for bring this to our attention.

Greg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rigatoni



Joined: 25 Feb 1999
Posts: 498

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greg,

Note that you can comment on the design and separately on the process (What is their proposed Categorical Exemption to any sort of Environmental Impact Review.) If you read through that document, they claim that the windsurfing community has provided input (very minimally); that the walk through with the NPS last month had mixed reactions (actually almost universally against-I guess "mixed" is when the public feels one way and the NPS feels another); and that there is no significant impact to recreational use (which is completely untrue.)

The process stinks to high heaven and these bureaucrats need to be stopped.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Riptide



Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Posts: 411

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/Resurface-Crissy-Field-Promenade-and-Reconfigure-East-Beach-Parking-Area

https://www.scribd.com/doc/307719339/Draft-Public-Ready-Categorical-Exlusion-Approval-Form-and-Attachments


https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=72089

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
usa4



Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The design changes seem like a great improvement to whats already there but I do have some concerns with the massive amounts of pavement proposed for parking at the eastern side of east beach. To me it seems like another giant Wall Mart or Cosco parking lot with no regard to the existing site. I'd hope some of the center rows, like Rigatoni suggested, could be reserved for more open green space or at least use a greener product- like turf paving vs that of asphalt. I understand this comes with additional cost but I come to the beach to get away from parking lots!

I think the redesign may be good with grass rigging area extended to promenade so we don't need to cross a driving lane with our gear to get to the beach. It seems we will gain additional green space for rigging but parking close may become more limited. With that said- a lot of trade off but understandable given the amount of increased users at the site. Many casual users may not realize the additional parking to the west of the new paved parking areas and this may benefit the wind and kite community as an unintended consequence.

I welcome the expanded grass areas by the restroom to the promenade but question the logic after 6 years of drought. Non watering of the existing green areas led to much of the under performance of the site. How will this be maintained in the future? I also wonder how you might be able to reuse the water from the (now turned off) shower to add in irrigation of the site but realize this is beyond the scope of the proposed project.

I wonder how a more basic maintenance of the site over the years would not have led to its decline and forced us to a major design. The categorical exemption of the scope of the project vs that of a more normal environmental review process seems a bit sneaky but realize how these things work to get funding. Damned if you do- damned if you don't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tomg



Joined: 10 Apr 2000
Posts: 294

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not seeing all the problems for windsurfers. There is no argument that the turf approach has failed terribly in the last few years of drought conditions and heavy use, and a new surface is in order. Nobody wants to see a park full of asphalt so I give NPS credit for trying to give us a 'green' parking area. The current configuration has us rigging on the lawn next to the the bathroom and then trying to get the gear between parked and moving cars to the beach; whereas, the new plan has a strip of grass in its place. "Just imagine carrying your rig across 30 feet of promenade as apposed to the current 20 feet..." Uh, sorry I must be missing something because that's looks to be an additional 10 feet of walking? I'd rather walk my rig a few more feet across turf unimpeded, then deal with parked and moving autos.

And with no net loss in parking spots it seems like our main concern is addressed. Though I'm not a regular user, I've hit it when the lot was full and ended up parking over on the Yacht Club access road so I can relate to a full lot and chaotic and efficient parking. Seems like what they are trying to address is a lack of markings on the ground leading to cars using up more than one spot. As for complaining about picnickers being in the way: sorry it's a public park.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rigatoni



Joined: 25 Feb 1999
Posts: 498

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom,

To respond to your issues:

1. The turf has failed because they have refused to maintain it. The SFBA and local Crissy sailing community has actually volunteered our time to help reseed and restore these areas. Those offers have been ignored.

2. The grass adjacent to the promenade and beach could be a nice improvement but sand blowing from the west during the season and from the NE in the winter has inundated this grass area with sand, making it a very unpleasant space. I think this is the one aspect of the re-design we could possibly get on board with but only if the details are such to keep the sand out of the grass

3. There is no net loss in parking but we lose about half the parking at the west end of the lot. Those remaining spaces are going to filled up pretty quickly on weekends by sailors, dog walkers, and people and bbqs. The result is many of us will be forced into the large Walmart like lot that is far from both the beach and grass rigging area. No thank you.

4. The NPS is pushing this half baked plan hard due to the fact that they need to spend the money in 2016 and they are short circuiting an approvals process that needs to happen so that concerns of stakeholders like us are addressed.

5. We have put forward a number of options that could either keep the current layout and pave the perimeter areas around the grass. We have also provided some feedback on their current layout mostly to try to get more grass at the east end of the lot so we can park and rig nearby. Hopefully they will get the picture but we have been a little frustrated that other agendas seem to be superseding ours.

I know you are a regular at TI and would hope that you would appreciate that us Crissy locals are trying to maintain what has been an incredible place for us to sail and bond as a community. The current layout has fostered this whereas the proposed layout will degrade it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Goodwind



Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 323
Location: On water

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is my two cents. If the issue is low cost maintenance and water conservation, why not just replace the heavily used turf area with artificial turf as what S.F. did to a natural turf soccer filed in the Golden Gate Park. I believe 3rd Ave's ragging area also has newly installed artificial turf without much negative impacts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Riptide



Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Posts: 411

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

windgood wrote:
Here is my two cents. If the issue is low cost maintenance and water conservation, why not just replace the heavily used turf area with artificial turf as what S.F. did to a natural turf soccer filed in the Golden Gate Park. I believe 3rd Ave's ragging area also has newly installed artificial turf without much negative impacts.


They have said they can only use native lawn grass like red rye.

The lawns would look fine , but the NpS has some agenda and purposely have let the lawns die.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rigatoni



Joined: 25 Feb 1999
Posts: 498

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi all,

Just bumping this to the top of the list to remind everyone to comment on the NPS documents if you haven't already. This unprecedented short comment period comes to an end on Wednesday.

Comment on the Schematic Design

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=303&projectID=63094&documentID=72089

Comment on the Categorical Exemption

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=303&projectID=63094&documentID=72088
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Riptide



Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Posts: 411

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.scribd.com/doc/310135433/SFBA-Crissy-Field-East-Beach-Centennial-Repair-Project-Comment-Letter-Final

Thank you Chris and Bill for your hard work.

Official release per Bill Robberson President SFBA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Southwest USA, Hawaii, Mexico All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group