Posts Tagged ‘commission’

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

Rainbow Falls at Rest and Rainbow Falls Back in Action, Under Drake’s Prayer Book Cross in Golden Gate Park

Thursday, September 21st, 2017

Here’s the way things used to be in Golden Gate Park:

il_fullxfull.907053442_79lr copy

And here’s yesterday morning:

7J7C0079 copy

And here’s yesterday afternoon:

7J7C0088 copy

Maintenance, I guess.

Oh, and this

“There may be a reason for its lack of visibility. The city of San Francisco had to sell off the large Mount Davidson cross after a 1990 lawsuit declared it to be a violation of California constitution. The same may indeed apply to the Prayer Book cross, were anyone able to see it.”

…is exactly correct, and for two reasons:

  1. Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind – Old Rec and Park (pictured below) doesn’t want to deal with the Establishment Clause, OH HELL NO. So, the less this cross gets seen, the less likely it is to cause consternation.
  2. It’s Part Of The Legal Standard – So judges and juries just might scrutinize images to see how much this cross is IN YO FACE. The more out-of-the-way it is, the more likely it is to be allowed. Trees are a factor, as they were in the Mt. Davidson case.

Our RPD has other fish to fry these days, of course.

(The biggest thing this cross has going for it is that it’s old. It’s History. Otherwise it wouldn’t be allowed on Public Land.)

And of course, Thurston and Lovey aren’t ACTUALLY Rec and Park Commissioners…

687qc3-copy

…but they might as well be. I don’t think they’d vote any different than the average commish.

Anyway, Get Out And Play in GGP – it’s Archbishop of Canterbury-approved.

 

Transformers 6 Now Filming in Peacock Gap, San Rafael – We’re Paying $22 Million for “Bumblebee” – Code Name: “Brighton Falls”

Monday, July 24th, 2017

So some people are calling this joint “Transformers 6,” but it’s more of an offshoot, a part of the Transformers Universe, hence the name Transformers Universe: Bumblebee.

Our North Bay MSM is on the case. See?

Capturetfytf

Who knows where they will film next in the bay area. Could be Frisco, why not? (Well, why not if you don’t factor in our $14 an hour minimum wage, which the Hollywood set still can’t wrap its head around.)

Hey, speaking of money, we’re paying $22 million for this production? Ouch. But here’s the pitch:

“Canada provides large tax credits to production companies for shooting up there, which has resulted in an enormous loss of productions to Canada from California, taking with them all their salaries and taxes. By California providing credits it creates balance and ensure that productions, which inject huge sums of money into the local economy through equipment, hotel and home rentals, wages, sales taxes and more, stay in California. Productions also provide large numbers of jobs for PAs, ADs, DPs etc… Since the average cost of filming often exceeds $1 million a day, you can see how much having these productions shot in Marin, or California, feeds back into our economy. It’s one of the best investments we can make, as Hollywood is an enormous part of our state economy.”

I’m sorry, what a load of horse shit that was. Now here’s the reality, from the House Organ of Hollywood:

Film Tax Incentives Are a Giant Waste of Money, New Study Finds

Yep yep.

Now lately, Transformers movies have mostly been made for China. I’m srsly. (We can talk about this, if you want.) So why not have the People’s Republic of China pay for this movie instead of the tax and fee payers of California, one wonders.

And better yet, why not just film the whole deal over in China as well? Just asking.

However, this film will be Michael Bay-free, so who knows, it might end up being perfectly cromulent. It’s a live-action Iron Giant with a female lead, right?

Filming is supposed to wrap by November 15th, 2017. Hopefully, if you aspire to be an extra, you and your friends can hop on the gravy train and somehow make some cash from this production.

And what of the future? There are currently 13 other Transformers films in development. I’m srsly.

Play us out, Bobby Bolivia. Play us out, Bumblebee:

CHIPOTLE Opens in the Great Middle of Frisco: July 2, 2015 at Geary and Masonic – Mervyn’s Heights Will Never Be The Same

Wednesday, July 1st, 2015

Who knows, maybe they‘ve soft opened already by this late date? IDK.

Here’s all I know about this “Mexican” “Restaurant”

Chipotle Mexican Grill
2675 Geary Blvd San Francisco, CA 94118
(415) 202-0781
Today 11:00 am – 10:00 pm

Anyway, here’s what it looked like a week ago, complete with acres of free parking right out front:

20150623_124111 copy

Speaking of which, man this place is going to be hard to get to – nobody would purposefully design the streets around City Centre Mall the way they are these days. First came Sears and then came the rise of the millionaire NIMBY neighbors (yes even here, in this bleak place) and then you mix in five decades of random happenstance, and then you’ll end up with a rat-maze of one-way streets and left-turn onlys.

Here’s the map:

fss

If you’re at Geary and Mason, simply enter Target, take the escalator upstairs, exit Target and then take the Great Chipotle Tunnel past the Panera Bread and boom, there you go.

Bon Courage, I guess.

Marina District Pet Store Update: Is This a Hated Chain Store Like Pet Food Express or a Beloved Local Store?

Tuesday, May 19th, 2015

I can’t tell, and that’s sort of my point…

7J7C6855 copy

One wonders about all this stress and strife

(One wants [or SHOULD want to, anyway] to live the sporting life)

Leaving you with this

“It doesn’t matter whether a cat [PET FOOD STORE] is white [LOCAL] or black [A CHAIN], as long as it catches mice.”

Chipotle Mexican Grill Opening at Geary and Masonic in Mid-July, Allowing the Great Middle of SF to Live Mas

Monday, May 4th, 2015

Mid-July is the official anticipated opening date for the new Chipotle located around back of the City Target Mall at 2675 Geary atop Mervyn’s Heights.

As you can see, Chips has firm beachheads in the northeast and southwest, and now Food With Integrity is invading the Great Middle of Frisco:

Capturefdffhhhh copy

This one’s a done deal, and who knows when another “grass-roots” effort will spring up with locals demanding a Chipotle for their neighborhood, as with CastroRestaurant@chipotle.com a few years back

“BURRITOFICATION IN PROGRESS” – Chipotle Chain Store Comes to Mervyn’s Heights, 94118 – NOW HIRING at Geary and Masonic

Monday, April 6th, 2015

After a giant Fail Whale landed upon the efforts to bring a Chipotle Mexican Grill to the masses at Church and Market a few years back, the purveyors of America’s Favorite Mission-style Burrito set about making things work up at 2675 Geary.

And lo, here it is:

7J7C4948 copy

Soon enough, everybody living on the wrong side of Divis will be able to Live Más and Think Outside The Bun…

Entire West Side Wonders When Its Chipotle is Going to Get Here, at Geary and Masonic

Monday, December 22nd, 2014

Co-opting The Mission Burrito sure takes a long time, huh?

Artist’s conception of what the mighty sign on Masonic will look like, sooner or later:

7J7C0689 copy

Appears as if Panera Bread will win the race to further chainify the Western Addition

And it looks like not a single soul in the world will raise a voice against the Chipotle chain coming to 2675 Geary.

If District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell Needs To Be Replaced Soon, Two People with Legitimacy are Abe Simmons and Kat Anderson

Monday, December 15th, 2014

First things first, you tell me how big a deal this is:

Supervisor Farrell directed to pay S.F. $190,000 for violation by John Coté

And don’t niss this part:

“Theoretically speaking, I think they then become the same campaign,” said John St. Croix, director of the Ethics Commission.

Kaboom. Did an effort (from Janet Reilly, or some other Reilly)…

FPPC Stipulation, Decision and Order

…lead to this…

FPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.

…almost four long years later?

OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS:

1. Why does big news always seem to come out post meridiem on a Day of Frigg, you know, like on a Friday evening? Funny that.

2. Could this situation explain why Mark Farrell nominated (law student(!)) Katy Tang as interim Board of Supervisors President?

3. Is Mark Farrell going to serve out his second term? IDK.

4. If he doesn’t, who’s going to replace him? Mmmm…

The election that District 2 held four years ago was narrowly lost by Janet Reilly, but I can’t see her ever getting appointed D2 Supe in today’s political environment.

Now, what about the people who came in third and fourth, the people who myabe could have / should have formed an ANYBODY BUT JANET ranked-choice voting troika / three-way with Mark Farrell?

Meet Ivy Leaguer Abraham Simmons:

Does he still live in the District? IDK.

Now meet Stanfoo-educated Kat Anderson:

I’m thinking either of these two attorneys could slot right into the job.

You know, if necessary.

Here’s what people have been talking about over the weekend:

Agenda – December 16, 2014

SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING and AGENDA
December 16, 2014, 5:00 P.M.
Room 400 City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco

[EXCERPT]

  • Discussion with City Attorney’s Office regarding potential litigation by the City Attorney’s Office against local committees, including Common Sense Voters, SF 2010; Vote for Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor, for violations of local campaign finance laws.  Possible Closed Session.  (Attachments: FPPC Stipulation, Decision and OrderFPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.)
    1. Public comment on all matters pertaining to Agenda Item III, including whether to meet in closed session.
    2. Vote on whether to assert attorney-client privilege and meet in closed session under California Government Code section 54956.9 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation:  San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114.  (Action.)
    3. Conference with Legal Counsel:  Anticipated litigation.  (Discussion.)
      Number of possible cases: 1
    4. If closed session is held, reconvene in open session.
    5. Discussion and vote pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken or discussions held in closed session regarding anticipated litigation.   (Discussion and possible action.)
      Motion:  The Ethics Commission moves (not) to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation.

I suppose we’ll find out more tomorrow…

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: “Vows Aggressive Defense of the Prop B Waterfront Development Voting Measure”

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

All right, it’s on, the defense of Prop B (2014) is on:

“San Francisco’s participatory waterfront land use decision-making has included voters, elected leaders and appointed commissioners for decades, City Attorney argues

SAN FRANCISCO (July 15, 2014) — The California State Lands Commission today sued San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, an initiative measure passed in the June 3 election that requires voter approval for waterfront development height increases on property owned or controlled by the Port of San Francisco.  The legal challenge filed in San Francisco Superior Court contends that the California legislature specifically intended to prohibit local voters from exercising authority over bay and coastal public trust lands, strictly limiting management of state tidelands to designated trustees.  In its legal action today, the State Lands Commission argues that the sole trustee responsible for sovereign tidelands in San Francisco is the city’s Port Commission.  The State Lands Commission is additionally seeking a preliminary injunction to bar San Francisco from enforcing Prop B.

In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement:

“For decades, land use decisions involving San Francisco’s waterfront have included voters, elected leaders and appointed members of our Planning and Port Commissions.  It’s a participatory process that enacted a comprehensive Waterfront Land Use Plan in 1990, developed a showplace ballpark for the Giants, and continues to protect an urban waterfront that is the envy of cities worldwide.  San Francisco’s deliberative decision-making process on waterfront land use has never been successfully challenged, and I intend to defend it aggressively.  With today’s lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative — and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission — affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid.  That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere.  While the City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco’s voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city’s waterfront is developed.”

(more…)