Posts Tagged ‘meeting’

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)

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

TASER TASER TASER – Sign Up Now for These Official SFPD TASER Meetings – TASER TASER TASER

Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

The cops can’t say TASER, but I can: TASER TASER TASER. (I can also say band aid and realtor.)

There are only 100 seats, so these free meetings will sell out, and maybe the first one already has, but IDK because I can’t get to the evite page. But you can, Gentle Reader, I’m sure of it. You’re very clever.

 “Community Input on CEDs (Conducted Energy Device)
Tue, Sep 12, 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM
Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, 99 Grove Street, San Francisco, CA
The San Francisco Police Commission along with the SFPD and with the facilitation support of the Human Right’s Commission is inviting community members to weigh in, ask questions, share perspectives and voice concerns about whether CEDs (Conducted Energy Devices, also known as Tasers) should be considered as a force option for the Police Department. The meetings are also a platform to provide input on the draft policy (http://sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/Documents/PoliceCommission/police-commission-CED%20policy%20draft%20dated%2008%3A25%3A17%20%28%22clean%20version%29.pdf) to be presented for discussion at a future Police Commission meeting. We will have two meetings. First meeting is: Tuesday, September 12, 2017, 6pm- 8 pm @Bill Graham Auditorium, 99 Grove (http:/ /evite .me/kS846TMa7q) Because of the capacity limitations of this space, we ask those interested to register via Evite. For safety, we are limited to 100 attendees and will accept comments, feedback, questions and concerns by email sfpd.commission@sfgov.org or via the Commission’s Facebook and/or Twitter.

All the deets, in pdf format:

police-commission-CED policy draft dated 08-25-17 (-clean version)

Spot the former SF Police Commish who did a 180 on “Conducted Energy Devices” a while back. I think he was the critical vote.

IMG_8734

And in the meantime, Frisco still has TASERs all over, they’re just not being used by the SFPD. Think of different LEOs what operate here, some in large numbers:

img_9386-copy

SFGov Invites YOU to a FREE DINNER at the Park Branch Library Tonight – New Panhandle Playground – Bring the Kids!

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017

Here’s the news from a few years back and here’s what’s going to happen tonight at our SFPL’s Park Branch Library at 1833 Page near Clayton at 5:30 PM:

“Panhandle Playground Project – Planning Workshop – May 31 @ 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm

A workshop to discuss future improvements to the Panhandle Playground as part of the Let’s Play SF! Initiative – a partnership with the San Francisco Parks Alliance.

Food provided! Children and youth welcome as we will have planning activities geared towards them!

For more information about the Panhandle Playground Project, please visit tinyurl.com/PanhandlePlayground or contact Project Manager Melinda Stockmann at Melinda.Stockmann@sfgov.org or at 415-581-2548.”

But oh, there are a few issues.

1 So who’s paying the millions of dollars SFGov is proposing to spend? Well, they don’t get into that. I assume it’s local tax- and fee-payers. So that’s one of the costs of this project, right?

2. I mention that because destroying the current setup, the popular Kid’s Kingdom playground what’s the current Panhandle Playground, and then putting in a replacement will take, what, months, years? I mean, delays are baked into the cake, right?

Oh, here it is. “WELCOME TO KID’S KINGDOM – DONATED BY YOUR LOCAL SATURN DEALER.” Or at least it used to say that. But area residents didn’t cotton to this kind of marketing, so chop chop:

7J7C1455-copy

3. One way to take care of this lengthy shut down issue would be to build the new playground someplace else nearby. THIS IS ONE OF THE CHOICES THAT YOU MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE INPUT ON TONIGHT. Frankly, I don’t think Rec and Park would really be into moving the site JMO. The current location has a bunch of exotic trees around it, which many find appealing, but given the half-assed way RPD conducts its bidness, there’s a heightened risk of a big old branch coming down and killing somebody someday. Anyway, our RPD seems to think nothing of shutting down playgrounds for basically no reason for like a year, so I don’t think it cares oh well.

Getting rid of the rats should be high on the agenda regardless:

7J7C8993-copy

RPD’s hands are tied about getting rid of rats. They can cull the herd, but getting rid of them altogether, well that’s a gonna be hard. They have some helpers though, to swoop down and carry away the poor little rattus rattus:

7J7C2468-copy

4. But here’s the thing: Once you wrap your head around building the new playground while keeping the current one open, then who’s to say that people would prefer the new one? In fact, the current Kid’s Kingdom Panhandle Playground is remarkably popular, drawing in kids from all over the city. Why? Well mostly it has to do with all the tons of sand. People love the sand. And these days it’s a rare thing in Frisco. You know who hates sand, or at least hates taking care of sand? That’s right, your RPD. Speaking of which, RPD isn’t all that popular and yet the current playground is. So why not get a new RPD and leave the current playground alone?

5. Or better yet, take the money set aside and use it to take care of the Panhandle Playground better – is that so crazy? Ask people who are there and they are shocked that RPD and associated non-profits run by millionaires consider this place a “failing” playground. What makes it a “failure?” Its popularity? The current playground is a beat up Toyota Land Cruiser with 100,000 miles, which means that if you take care of it, maybe spruce it up a bit, then it will last for decades more, right?

6. But, RPD is already set upon getting rid of Kid’s Kingdom, without asking anybody. (Our SFMTA once made the mistake of actually asking if people wanted the crazy, I mean just crazy traffic circles they randomly put on Page, among other places. And the answer was no, we want our stop signs back, by a three to one margin. So this kind of thing is on RPD’s mind when it considers asking people what they want.) And they’re already paying a project manager and they’ve selected the main contractor, so RPD would think it “sad” if they had to give back the millions of dollars set aside.

7. Oh well.

8. And let’s see, is all that sand what’s there bad because of parasites? Well that could be true but it’s not because we don’t have no cats around, at least the way the ‘burbs do.

9. And is there arsenic in the wood at the playground now? Oh, yes there is. But it’s not all that big a deal. Typically, if there’s arsenic in your kid, then it’s going to be from something other than CCA wood. And you’re supposed to wash your hands after leaving, at least that’s what an RPD sign says what’s posted near the eastern entrance.

10. Oh, what’s that, playgrounds have changed so so much in the two decades since (Old) General Motors simply gifted us $100k to put in Kid’s Kingdom? Noooooope! You’re wrong, RPD.

11. But you have a new Theory of Playgrounds that you’re happy to share and discuss? Well, that’s fine, but the people who made Kid’s Kingdom also had theories and I’ll bet if you put them together, cut them up and then presented them to RPD employees, they wouldn’t be able to distinguish betwixt the bad old theories and the great new theories.

12. Oh well.

13. So the current playground is “failing” but the current users don’t have the foggiest idea of what that means, so why doesn’t RPD face up to this?

14. Anyway, you’ve paid for this project, so you deserve some free food at the library. They’ll ask you about your feelings about this and that, like what color should this be kind of thing. One supposes.

15. If the food’s not to your liking, Mickey D’s on Haight has 2 for 1 Happy Meals today, via their app.

16. Adieu Kid’s Kingdom. Many people will miss your ocean of sand, especially the Little Ones. Expect a playground geared more for Big Kids. For Better or Worse. Eventually.

17. OIOW:

“long-suffering playground” [IRL, it’s an extremely popular playground. Its current Yelp rating is 4.5 stars, which is the very definition of almost perfect, right? And hey look, what about the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Yelp rating – it’s much lower, it’s actually just 2.5 stars, right? Is RPD “failing?” Should we simply fire everybody and start over? Hey, why don’t we start using objective measurements, like asking the playground’s existing customers what they think? Is that too radical a notion?]

“finally” [This “framing” assumes 100% of what the millionaire-run Parks Alliance nonprofit says is accurate]

“Victim to time” [Well sure, you could replace this or that at this location, but what’s so wrong with it? What makes it a useless tear-down?]

“frequent wear and tear” [Because it’s popular? We’re going to change it because it’s popular and it gets used?]

“grown-up play” [Turns out it was sixth-graders who busted the slide, per the word on the street]

“the playground pales in comparison to other high-tech kids’ play areas in the city.” [What on Earth could  make a playground “high tech?” Like, “sure this playground is great, but I feel it doesn’t employ the most recent application of science?” Like, who says that? IRL, it’s perfectly fine.]

“failing playgrounds” [But the Panhandle Playground isn’t “failing,” right? Ask all the people who use it and try to find one person who would give it a letter grade of “F“]

“low household income” [Is this area a low household income area? WTF to that. In fact, the 94117 is an extremely high household income place, right? It’s off the charts, actually, nationally speaking. And even locally, it’s anything but a low household income area.]

“low Parks Alliance Report Card grades and rankings.” [Oh, here we go, here’s the problem. What’s the PARC and why does it matter?]

“an early holiday gift to District 5.” [London Breed is thinking “CHRISTMAS” but she says holidays – good for her. But who’s paying for this gift? Oh, we are? So it’s not really a gift, is it, London Claus?]

“high-tech play matting” [I have no fucking idea what this means. Currently, the joint is basically a giant sand box. Is this a bad thing? One supposes that some think so, but one doesn’t know.]

“What would you like to see improved upon in our small neighborhood playground?” [Keeping it the same, except for maintenance, which, if it’s lacking, then whose fault is that? Cough RPD, cough]

Wouldn’t it be ironic, dontcha think, if the Yelp ratings of the Panhandle Playground go down after we spend all those millions of dollars on this simple, functional playground?

We’ll see.

 

RPD Takes Down Its Tree Mail in the Golden Gate Park Panhandle

Friday, May 26th, 2017

Before:

7J7C2599-copy

After:

7J7C2662 copy

Well there we go.

Thanks, RPD!

While you’re at it, why not fix the walking path along Oak? I don’t think this is a money issue, it’s a something-else issue. It has to do with your priorities, RPD…

RPD v. DPW: Rec and Park STAPLES Its Ad to a TREE in Golden Gate Park – Is This Allowed?

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

I’ll tell you, our Rec and Park (rated at just 2.5 stars) is SICK AND TIRED of taking care of the ocean of sand that makes up our perfectly fine, 4 star-rated Kid’s Kingdom Panhandle Playground, so it wants to spend millions of dollars on a replacement.

So here’s the ad for the next step, for a public meeting at the Park Branch of our San Francisco Public Library:

7J7C2599 copy

RPD stapled its ad to a tree.

Now let’s check out what DPW has to say. See that? No staples allowed. Like not even on a telephone pole, man.

I recognize that DPW rules might not apply all over Frisco, but geez man. Do you want people stapling crap to your trees, RPD?

Now as far as the proposals for getting rid of Kid’s Kingdom, well, what if the new playground were free and what if it could be created in an instant – would existing users prefer the new place or the existing playground? You know, IDK.

The parents / caregivers are, generally, astonished when they hear that the Panhandle Playground is one of the worst in Frisco. And actually a lot of them travel past other playgrounds to get to this particular one, so they aren’t looking forward to RPD taking all that sand away.

OTOH, RPD doesn’t have the scratch to fix the nearby walking path next to Oak. For want of a half-mil, it’s given up on doing anything with that abysmal macadam anytime soon.

So that’s why RPD going to lengths to dismantle a perfectly fine playground is a bit funny.

And of course, the new playground isn’t free – it’ll cost millions. And of course, it won’t get built in an instant – it’ll take months. And of course, there are other pros and cons to putting in a new playground. But RPD has already decided to get rid of Kid’s Kingdom, so they want people to now focus on tiny details (oh, what color would you like the paint to be?) as opposed to the big picture (the place is very popular, and people are sad at the idea of losing the sand, but they’d like RPD to do a better job of taking care of the place, and why not just keep this place instead of destroying it?)

Oh well…

Special SFPD Park Station Community Meeting on Valentine’s Day Dealing with Violent Crime Uptick North of the Panhandle

Monday, February 13th, 2017

All the deets from Hoodline.

7J7C6915 copy

Oh, I Guess the Hated / Beloved Pedestrian Bridge over Geary at Webster is Going to Stay After All? – Geary BRT Update

Monday, August 1st, 2016

Look at all this stuff our SFCTA was going to do:

Capturefsdfddd copy

Note “Roadway redesign – mid 2016”

Capturefdfsdddd copy

Well guess what – the SFCTA / SFMTA recently caved, so the Bridge Over The River Geary will remain at Webster.

So all these meetings were a big success, or a huge failure for the SFCTA, depending on how you look at it.

And look at all the Haterade that the SFCTA poured over the pedestrian bridges of Geary – and this is just 20% of the references made:

In the Japantown and Fillmore areas, there are closed crosswalks and circuitous pedestrian bridges that are not compliant with accessibility standards for people with disabilities.

In the Japantown area, as depicted in Figure 1-6, some aspects that discourage pedestrian movement and activity include narrow medians and circuitous pedestrian bridges that intimidate some and are not compliant with accessibility standards for people with disabilities.

Spanning Geary Boulevard are two pedestrian bridges at the Webster Street and Steiner Street intersections, where closed crosswalks limit pedestrians‟ ability to cross Geary Boulevard at ground level. These overcrossings are several decades old and, although they provide separation from traffic, are often perceived as an inconvenient way of crossing Geary Boulevard due to the long and indirect ramps, change in elevation required, and some users‟ sense of insecurity. Additionally, the pedestrian overcrossings are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), hindering the mobility of people with disabilities.

Pedestrian bridges at Steiner Street and Webster Street: These two pedestrian overcrossings would be removed, to eliminate conflicts between these structures‟ piers and the proposed bus lanes, as well as to provide new pedestrian crossings at street grade.

Two pedestrian bridges span Geary Boulevard at the Webster Street and Steiner Street intersections. The grade-separated walkways allow pedestrians to cross over Geary Boulevard. These overcrossings are several decades old and are perceived as an inconvenient way of crossing due to the long and indirect ramps, change in elevation required, and some users’ sense of insecurity. Additionally, the pedestrian overcrossings are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to their average inclines exceeding the ADA standard of a five percent maximum grade (i.e. a slope increasing in elevation by five feet for every 100 feet in length), which makes wheelchair crossings difficult.

Like I said, this is just 20% of the vitriol our SFCTA spewed upon these two bridges in just one document. I get the feeling these SFCTA people would say just about anything to get nine figures from the Feds. I mean if the Feds would give the SFCTA $100,000,000 to recommend keeping everything on Geary EXACTLY THE SAME FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS, then I’ll bet the we would have gotten a document what extols the virtues of these bridges.

Anyway, the Webster bridge is staying, that’s the news.

I Finally Made It In To BOHEMIAN GROVE – Plus, a Big “Muir Woods Sustainable Access Project” Meeting Tonight in Mill Valley

Monday, June 27th, 2016

Which came first – this Bohemian Grove or this one in Muir Woods?

7J7C7723 copy

IDK.

Hey, our NPS is having a meeting, about parking, or shuttle buses ‘n stuff like that:

Public Meeting – Muir Woods Sustainable Access Project
Date & Time 06/27/2016 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM

Please join us for a public meeting later this month to update you on the Muir Woods Sustainable Access Project (formerly Muir Woods Site Improvements). This project would preserve resources by improving parking, transit, and pedestrian access at Muir Woods.

Meeting Details:

DATE: Monday, June 27
TIME: 6-8 pm
LOCATION: Tamalpais High School, Student Center
700 Miller Ave
Mill Valley CA 94941 **Parking on Almonte Ave.**

Key Project Elements: The project scope has been modified in response to further analysis and public input. Key elements include:

Redesign/reorganization of parking (not to exceed the 232 existing personal vehicle spaces)
Improvements to pedestrian trails and walkways connecting parking to monument entrance
Protection of resources by better managing stormwater runoff from parking areas
Completion of plaza improvements begun in 2010
Muir Woods Pedestrian Bridge Replacements
Future Dipsea Trail Bridge
Salmon in Redwood Creek
Marin Transit

Public scoping & comment for the Muir Woods Sustainable Access Project was completed in the fall of 2013. An environmental assessment will be released for public review and comment in the fall of 2016 in compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).Comments received on cultural resource issues will also be taken into account while coordinating compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Location: Tamalpais High School, Student Center, 700 Miller Ave, Mill Valley, CA, 94941
Time: 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Contact Name: Mia Monroe
Contact Phone Number: 415-561-4964″

But if you’re one of those weaving spiders, you’re better off staying home…

go8f2150a