Followup Comments to Cyndy Shafer of State ParksFrom pk@well.com
Cyndy - this is the kind of thing I'm concerned about.
The JPA (Joint Powers Authority) will move forward with development of
five playing fields on the strip of land between the freeway and the Bay,
south of the Golden Gate Fields racetrack stables area, and north of the
Eastshore State Park boundary. This is the parcel recently purchased from
GGF by East Bay Regional Parks District, and will probably be known as
"Gilman Park."
There is an opportunity to add some access for paddle and wind-powered
boats, right next to the field sports complex. Some of us see a very
valuable synergy in bringing the two user groups into close proximity; a
lot of kids who come down to the waterfront for practice (or to watch a
sibling in a game) will very likely be exposed to kayaks and other small
watercraft at close range for the first time. This is especially valuable
because water-based sports often appeal to people who are not attracted
the culture of field sports - it would add a whole new dimension of
recreational opportunities to the site.
Right now, the JPA proposal includes some space in their field house for
kayak support, and a small area for onsite kayak storage. Plus some
relatively inexpensive amenities like an outside shower and hose.
This is all on the EBRPD side, more than 100 ft from the shoreline. On the
State Park side, on the small jetty that extends out from the foot of
Gilman Street, there is the possibility of some improvements to the to rocks
and beach to make launching a little easier. But this is not essential to
the success of the site, and presumably would come later.
The problem is that Sierra Club (or at least, people representing
themselves as Sierra Club) want any new water access at Gilman to be
a trade for the much more comprehensive boating facility shown in the ESP
General Plan. Also, they insist that nothing can happen until the
Waterbird Study is complete, even if the new access is at the boundary of
the North Basin and only allows access to areas where there are currently
no restrictions on any kind of non-motorized boating access. (That's why
the boundary of the study area is important - extending the boundary
beyond the protection of Cesar Chavez Park to the west makes no sense
geographically, but could be used politically to block any improvements to
kayak access.)
Here's the position purportedly from the Sierra Club, most likely the work
of Norman La Force:
The Sierra Club has responded "The Club will consider this issue, but
only on two major conditions. First, this constitutes a trade for the
proposed boating access within the Eastshore State Park. The Club will
oppose two boating access sites along the East side of the North Basin
Cove, unless there is a firm agreement from the State the they will not
go forward with the boat launch, etc. farther South, this boating access
will be vigorously opposed. Second, it must be demonstrated that there
will not be any significant impact to wildlife especially rafting
waterfowl."
What is really telling about this position is that even if the second
condition is met, i.e. no significant impact to wildlife, they STILL
object to this additional access point. WHY? There is nothing more
consistent with "recreation in a natural setting" (the primary
purpose of the Eastshore State Park, according to the enabling legislation)
than wind and muscle-propelled boating. And, there is no better
way to build a long-term
environmental constituency than by encouraging these forms of recreation -
kayaks, windsurfers and small sailboats are the breeding grounds for good
stewards of the bay and the shoreline.
Thank you for your continuing work on the waterbird study, and for
taking the time to discuss it with me.
(Feel free to redistribute this email.)
Paul Kamen
|