Posts Tagged ‘ashbury’

Wood Appears to have Been a Poor Choice for the Brand New Benches of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle

Friday, October 13th, 2017

This was the vision, mostly that of landed gentry millionaires with Strong Ideas about How Things Should Look:

downloadsdfsdf copy

And this is the reality, of Life in the 94117:

7J7C0013-copy

And this is the kind of post-vandalism fix-it job you can expect from Rec and Park, about a week or two after residents call the 311:

7J7C9819 copy

Not saying I could do better, but we’re down to bare wood here people, with no finish at all on all, pretty soon, looks like.

This vignette makes me think Wood Appears to have Been a Poor Choice for the Brand New Benches of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle.

END OF LINE.

Alamo Square Poo Volcano: If It Looks Like Toilet Paper on the Streets of San Francisco, IT IS

Monday, September 25th, 2017

Frisco infrastructure:

7J7C0309 copy

On the sidewalks of NoPA, just below the HSC:

7J7C0310 copy

And don’t forget about the Financh and the Upper Haight – you’ll see this kind of thing in those areas as well.

Oh well…

It Begins: Rec and Park Finally Gets Around to Painting Crosswalks onto the Panhandle Bike Path – But Who Has the Right of Way?

Friday, September 22nd, 2017

Here you go – this is this morning:

7J7C0199 copy

And here’s the result. Crosswalks are laid out all the intersections this multi-use path has with Shrader, Cole, Clayton, Ashbury, Central, and Lyon, as I was just talking about a couple days back.

7J7C0235 copy

So, who has the right of way at these intersections – is it bike riders or peds? Well, IDK. I know about the arguments, I just don’t know the answers. (Is this bike path a “wilderness trail?” I’ve heard that one, from an in insurance company trying to deny coverage.)

Anyway, I’m thinking that about 25% of the peds have quite deficient situational awareness on this path (including two of the three workers seen above) and about 15% of the bike riders are stereotypical jerkwads who “knows my rights” and go a bit too fast. When these two subsets meet up at these unusual intersections, accidents happen, oh well.

We’ll see how this goes. (One hopes our RPD could put up a little signage about a speed limit and who has the right of way, if that’s not too bold for RPD to consider…)

7J7C0243 copy

7J7C0255 copy

7J7C0261 copy

7J7C0260 copy

How Well-Matched are Rec & Parks’ Brand-New and Quite Twee Wooden Benches with the Panhandle? Let’s Take a Look

Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

Not well-matched at all, it would seem:

7J7C0013 copy

(Also, free hair curler!)

Here’s your background.

(Hey, is our RPD Board older, whiter, richer, and more suburbanite-minded than the locals they are employed to serve? You tell me, Babe. You tell me.)

Anyway, workers will take off these scribbles by removing the remaining surface treatment on these old-tyme, Elizabethan wooden slats, and then we’ll see how it goes…

Opposition Meeting for the 5-Unit Development Proposed at 1846 Grove / 1815 Fulton on Oct. 3rd, Page Branch Library

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Background is here and here.

Meeting info is here:

Group: Save SF Open Space
Event title: NOPA community meeting on Grove Street Construction
Event purpose: This is a neighborhood meeting to discuss the construction project at 1846V Grove Street
Meeting Location: Park Branch of San Francisco Public Library, 1833 Page
Time and Date: 7:00-8:30 PM on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017

Contact info:

SaveSFopenspace@gmail.com

Capturefgdfgffff (1)

Rec and Park’s New Sign in the Panhandle Directs Tourist Pedestrians AWAY from the Multi-Use Path Abutting Fell

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Let’s pay off on that headline right now.

Looking east from Stanyan:

7J7C9727 copy

Enhance!

7J7C9728 copy

Oh here we go: Bikes to the left, peds to the right, see?

7J7C9729 copy

Now I say tourists ’cause locals already know that they can tread upon “the bike path” in the Golden Gate Park Panhandle.

The real solution would be to widen this path what functions as a sidewalk for the south side of Fell, but for some reason, our RPD SFMTA SFCTA DPW alphabet soup don’t want to do that.

(And their next step will be to add painted crosswalk-type lines on the multi-use path where it intersects with what would be the sidewalks of Shrader, Cole, Clayton, Ashbury, Central, and Lyon if it weren’t for the existence of Golden Gate Park, the better to avoid any more bike v. ped accidents.)

Anyway, for better or worse…

Opposition Organizes Against the 5-Unit Development Proposed for 1846 Grove / 1815 Fulton – A “Landlocked” Parcel Near Masonic

Thursday, September 7th, 2017

There was a meeting about this proposal, which was under the radar until a couple weeks ago. Now, it’s a heavy blip, so it won’t be able to sneak into the ‘hood the way The World’s Smallest Burger King snuck into a 990 square foot parcel on 9th Ave back in the day.

Anyway, here it is, and if anything the width of the 3.5 foot wide panhandle part has been dramatically exaggerated in this official map:

Capturefgdfgffff

The time to have built here was a century ago IMO.

I don’t think it’s going to work out but that’s JMO…

The Craziest Frisco Infill Development Scheme Ever: Five Units with Just 3.5 Feet of Frontage – At 1846 Grove AND 1815 Fulton

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

Presenting 1815-1823 Fulton Street aka 1846 Grove Street – it’s that large parcel that prolly should be part of the backyards of people who live on the block bounded by Fulton, Masonic, Grove, and Ashbury in the 94117. But it’s not, so the plan now is to have this land used for five new units.

Access will be just to the right (east) of Bistro Gambrinus along a 100(!) foot path what’s just 3.5 feet wide.

Captureuhuhuh copy

This was the old plan, with just four units. The lot looks like Oklahoma with the panhandle part pointing upwards:

36d559246e69668bdc66bc8dc9a81534.jpg.max800 copy

So, how do you get your furniture in? Through the 3.5 foot wide access canyon on Fulton. I guess it’s wide enough, but how would get materials to the site? And forget about a garage, right?

Man, when the neighbors find out about this, well, some of them will not be pleased, I promise you.

Hey, if you want to yammer about this plan, come to the Page Branch of your San Francisco Public Library on September 6th, 2017 at 7:30 PM for the mandatory Pre-Application meeting. I’m sure they’ll have plans for the current proposal.

This is Masonic. The back fences of these places are the eastern edge of the access path:

7J7C8904 copy

Oh here it is – this is your view from the sidewalk of Fulton. This is all the frontage you get to share with four other units:

7J7C8908 copy

Existing gate:

7J7C8911 copy

Fulton again:

7J7C8913 copy

And a wide angle view:

7J7C8914 copy

Now let’s go around the block to what I’m guessing is 1846 Grove. I suppose this area wouldn’t change:

7J7C8920 copy

I don’t know what else could be done with this parcel. So I suppose this plan would be the highest and best use. But I’ve never seen anything like it.

Here’s something from 2006, when the plan was to use the Grove side for access:

Capturedfsddgdd

Dear Mr. Teeters: Planning Department staff has reviewed your letter of December 15, 2005, requesting a determination of the procedural requirements for development of an interior lot with a 3’-6” wide pedestrian access to Grove Street. Both proposed schemes involve the construction of two structures of two dwelling units each. Scheme A keeps the lot as it is, while Scheme B subdivides the lots. I have made the following determinations.

1. Scheme A requires the following applications: • A variance under Section 134 for construction in the required rear yard • A variance under Section 151 for the lack of parking • A conditional use application under Section 209.1(g) to develop more than two units on the lot. • Building Permit Application with Section 311 neighbor notification

2. Scheme B requires the following applications: • A variance under Section 134 for construction in the required rear yard • A variance under Section 151 for the lack of parking • A variance under Section 121 for the lack of street frontage • Building Permit Application with Section 311 neighbor notification • Application for subdivision through the Department of Public Works.

This application does not need to be initiated or complete prior to Planning Department approval, however approval will be conditional on subdivision approval.

UPDATE: Early indications are there will be some opposition, to say the least:

ALERTALERTALERT

Annual Move-In Weekend at Our University of San Francisco Appears to have been Well-Managed

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

Less contentious compared with years past, you know, AFAIK.

7J7C8043 copy

Sorry for this snoozer of a post, but there you go…

Frisco’s “Complaint-Driven” Anti-RV Parking Ordinance isn’t Working, So Far – Here’s the Proof

Tuesday, August 15th, 2017

Or, IDK, maybe it IS working, but all I know is that you still see a lot of RV’s parked on Fell during the hours of the new ban.

7J7C7642 copy

I’m sure if you call and call, then maybe somebody will do something, FBOW.

Anyway, maybe there are fewer RV’s parked on certain streets these days, but all I hear from people is that the Anti-RV Parking Ordinance isn’t Working, in the sense that lots of RVs are still around at places and times where and when they aren’t allowed – just an update here…