location for beginning- and intermediate-level windsurfers, because there is very little swell (wave action). These flat-water conditions allow windsurfers to develop skills that are more difficult to master in choppy water. Candlestick Point is not dependent on tidal conditions, and has adequate water depth for safe sailing at low tides. According to the Candlestick Preservation Association, on average, Candlestick Point has 85 “Sailable Days” per year (from April through September), and is frequented, on average, by 20 sailors per Sailable Day. In 2013, the Candlestick Preservation Association stated that Candlestick Point had 102 Sailable Days, which was more than other sites around the Bay.
The SFBA provided accumulated GPS tracks that it considers representative of the primary sailing area in this area of the Bay (Thorner, 2008). The SFBA considers westerly wind conditions to be generally good for windsurfing at CPSRA, with the best conditions during west-northwest winds (Thorner, 2008). Alternate windsurfing sites such as Crissy Field (San Francisco), Ocean Beach (San Francisco), and Oyster Point (South San Francisco) feature heavy surf, offshore winds, or strong currents – wind and water conditions that are not appropriate for beginners and intermediates. However, the CPA recommends extending the sailable area westward to the shoreline for about half of its north-south length. See Master Response 32 for discussion of the area analyzed in the Draft EIR.
[See page 5-432 for the original comment] Please see Master Response 34 for a discussion of how the project description informed the analysis of impacts to windsurfing. Mitigation, as suggested by the commenter, is not required under CEQA unless the Lead Agency finds that a significant impact would occur; however, for the reasons discussed in Master Responses 30-34 and responses to comments from the Candlestick Preservation Association and San Francisco Boardsailing Association, the Baylands EIR has determined that no significant impacts to windsurfing resources would result.
[See page 5-432 for the original comment] This comment recommends establishment of a 900-feet wide “Waterfront Preservation District,” as “mitigation for potential project impacts.” This Waterfront Preservation District would consist of “only low vegetation and structures and minimal topographical variation.” Implementation of such a “Waterfront Preservation District” is not included as mitigation for impacts on windsurfing resource. While CEQA requires implementation of all feasible mitigation measures when a significant impact is determined to result from a proposed project, CEQA also does not provide the Lead Agency with authority to require mitigation measures when no significant impact is determined to exist. As discussed in Section 4.M, Recreational Resources, of the Draft EIR, impacts on windsurfing resources were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.