Posts Tagged ‘plan’

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

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

A Crazy New SFMTA Plan to Allow Bike Riders to Run Red Lights on Fell and Oak in the “Panhandle-Adjacent” Area

Tuesday, October 4th, 2016

Here it is: The “Fell and Oak Streets Panhandle-Adjacent Bikeway Feasibility Study”

The basic idea is to take out one of the four lanes of Fell and one of the four lanes of Oak along the Golden Gate Park Panhandle from the Baker Street DMV to Stanyan and turn them into dedicated bike lanes.

You don’t need to even look at the report to know that this idea is “feasible” – obviously, our SFMTA can do this if it wants to:

captureghghhhh-copy

But why does the SFMTA want to do this? This is not stated in the report.

As things stand now, you can ride your bike on the left side of the left lanes of Fell and Oak, or on the right sides of the right lanes of Fell and Oak, or in any part of any lane of Fell and Oak if you’re keeping up with traffic (but this is especially hard to do heading uphill on Fell), or on the “multi-use pathway” (what I and most people call the bike path) what winds through the Panhandle.

So, why not widen the bike path again, SFGov? It used to be 8 foot wide and now it’s 12 foot wide, so why not go for 16 foot wide? (Hey, why doesn’t our SFMTA simply take over Rec and Park? You know it wants to.)

My point is that it would also be “feasible” to somehow force RPD to widen the current bike path (and also the extremely bumpy, injury-inducing Panhandle jogging/walking path along Oak) independent of whatever the SFMTA wants to do to the streets.

Anyway, here’s the news – check out page 12 of 13. No bike rider (or what term should I use this year, “person with bikes?” Or “person with bike?” Or “person with a bike?”) is going to want to sit at a red light at a “minor street” when s/he could just use the bike trail the SFTMA figures, so why not just allow them to ride on Fell and Oak without having to worry about traffic lights at all? And the pedestrians? Well, you’ll see:

“Minor Street Intersections

The minor cross-streets in the project area from east to west are Lyon Street, Central Avenue, Ashbury Street, Clayton Street, Cole Street, and Shrader Street. Each is a consistent width of 38’-9” curb-to-curb with 15-foot wide sidewalks. All of these streets are discontinued [Fuck man. How much colledge do you need to start talking like this, just asking] at the park, each forming a pair of “T” intersections at Oak and Fell streets. The preferred control for the protected bike lane at these “T” intersections is to exclude it from the traffic signal, allowing bicyclists to proceed through the intersection without stopping unless a pedestrian is crossing the bikeway. Due to the relatively low pedestrian volumes at these intersections, it is expected that people using the protected bike lane [aka cyclists? aka bike riders?] would routinely violate the signal if required to stop during every pedestrian phase, creating unpredictability and likely conflict between users on foot and on bicycles. This treatment also recognizes that in order to attract many bicycle commuters, the new protected bike lanes would need to be time-competitive with the existing multi-use path that has the advantage of a single traffic control signal for the length of the Panhandle.

Excluding the protected bike lane from the traffic signal requires installing new pedestrian refuge islands in the shadow of the parking strip. The existing vehicle and pedestrian signal heads currently located within the park would also need to be relocated to new poles on the pedestrian refuge islands.

Implementing these changes would cost between $70,000 and $150,000 per intersection, and require the removal of approximately four parking spaces per intersection. Over the eleven minor-street “T” intersections along the Panhandle (excluding Fell Street/Shrader Street which which has been discussed separately), the total cost would be between $0.9 and $1.5 million dollars and approximately 48 parking spaces would be removed.

This design introduces a variety of benefits and compromises [“compromises!” Or maybe “costs,” as in a cost/benefit analysis?] for pedestrians crossing to and from the park at the minor intersections:

Pedestrians would be required to wait for gaps in bicycle traffic to cross the protected bike lane (which may present new challenges to people with low or no vision). Design treatments for the protected bike lanes (e.g., stencil messages, rumble strips, signs) should also be considered to clearly indicate the necessity of yielding to pedestrians to people on bicycles.”

Our MASONIC AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT is a GO for Mid-2016, Apparently – The Pros and Cons of This Grand Mal Projet

Thursday, January 14th, 2016

Here you go, some non-pdf images that ppl will actually be able to find in six months, you know, after this official link will no longer be working, for whatever reason:

masonic1 copy

Y dos:

masonic2 copy

Getting Ready for Construction After a multi-year, community-driven planning and design process to create a safer and better Masonic Avenue, the city is pleased to announce that construction on the Masonic Avenue Streetscape Project will begin in mid-2016!

After all the delays, one doesn’t know how the SFMTA knows that it will actually get going. IRL, what the SFMTA is saying here is that it’s PLANNING on getting going in mid-2016 or later. I’d prolly lose any and all exclamation points as well. Also, instead of “community-driven,” I’d read that as SFMTA-driven. As far as safety is concerned, we’ll have to wait and see. The primary effect will be to slow this part of Masonic down down down. In recent years, pedestrian / cyclist deaths on Masonic have been caused by two severely drunk drivers, and one jaywalking pedestrian. So, will this happily-named “Streetscape!” pork-barrel project prevent DUI drivers? Nope, not at all. Will it lessen the bad effects of drunk driving? I srsly doubt it, but we’ll see. And, since this project’s northern border is at Geary, it will necessarily have little to no effect upon jaywalking Trader Joe’s shoppers at the top of the hill area. As far as whether Masonic will become “better,” well that’s debatable. I’ll concede it might be a better street for some. Of course, the SFMTA, being the inefficient political beast it has become, won’t never concede nothing nohow. It won’t even agree to test out how much these changes will slow down traffic, even for one day. What you’d do is cone off the slow lane of inbound Masonic one random morning and then watch the traffic back up and then spend your time explaining away all the consequences. Obviously, the SFMTA doesn’t want to do that, so it makes excuses. Fine. I’d expect nothing else from it.

San Francisco Public Works will be the managing the construction phase and is in the process of hiring a contractor. This project will bring a variety of new features to Masonic Avenue, including a landscaped median, better lighting, an improved sewer system, raised bikeways, bus stop enhancements, and a new public plaza at Geary Boulevard.

It will also take away some things. What are those, SFMTA? Oh, you don’t want to say? OK fine. One of these effects will be a slow down of MUNI on Masonic during the morning and evening drives. But, because they’ll put in some bus shelters, public “access” to transit will be “improved.” This makes no sense. How much will MUNI be slowed? We’ll have to wait and see. And then, the SFMTA will step up a few years later to spend more pork, more of The People’s Money, to “tune-up” Masonic. So that’s a double-win for the SFMTA, even though it’s not clear that the current plan will be a net “improvement.”

These enhancements are all in support of San Francisco’s Vision Zero goal of eliminating all traffic deaths in the city.

This is a simple definition of VisionZero. The complicated version is that, somehow, without really even trying, SF will miraculously eliminate all transportation deaths in SF County by the year 2024 and all in years future. If you acknowledge that this impossible goal is in fact impossible, then there are many positions at the SFMTA for which you’d be ineligible. Oh well.

If you have any questions about construction, please contact Alex Murillo at Alex.M.Murillo@sfdpw.org or 415.558.5296. Parking Management The SFMTA’s recent launch of Residential Permit Parking Area Q has helped keep parking available for local residents and businesses—additional evaluation data will be available in the coming months.

As a general rule, our SFMTA tends to favor Masonic Avenue area residents vs. the current users of Masonic and to a ridiculous degree. JMO.

To offset some of the parking being repurposed…

What would a neutral word be for “repurposed?” Would it be “eliminated?” Yes it would.

by the Masonic Avenue Streetscape Project, the SFMTA is evaluating nearby streets for opportunities to increase on-street parking supply and will be engaging the community for feedback.

So, our SFMTA has been saving up its energy to “create” parking spaces exactly at the time it wants to hush complaints of eliminating parking spaces? Apparently. Looking at the map on the second page, some of these blocks would appear to be non-starters. Our SFMTA certainly approves of illegal double-parking  on Central Ave, but this map would make a hash of that, oh well.

These efforts are in addition to the 20 spots already added on Fulton between Central and Baker as part of the separate Muni Forward 5 Fulton Rapid Project.

Our SFMTA boasts of putting in bike lanes on Fulton, and then pushing them towards the center of Fulton, but then come two blocks of 90 degree parking, the least cyclist-friendly thing I can imagine. But this placated residents and that appears to be one of our SFMTA’s Most Important Things.

And on it goes. If you want to read about Masonic, start here and spend all day if you want, I don’t care. Anyway, that’s the update for 2016. Traffic’s going to get a lot worse as soon as parts of Masonic start getting shut down and then it won’t get much better after construction is completed, oh well.

If you have any questions about potential added parking near Masonic Avenue, please contact Maurice Growney at Maurice.Growney@sfmta.com or 415.701.4549. For more information: sfmta.com/masonic MASONIC AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT N Masonic Avenue Area Proposed Parking Changes Potential Back-In Angled Parking Potential 90 Degree Parking Forthcoming Back-In Angled Parking (Legislated 2012)

Opposition to SF’s Plan to Destroy 26 Healthy Hardwoods at Geary & Masonic: “SAVE OUR TREES From DEVELOPERS”

Monday, August 3rd, 2015

Here’s the word on the street, from fliers posted all over:

P1280808 copy

Get up to speed on the coming ARBOR-GEDDON here.

I’m not sure about the reference to “DEVELOPERS.” SFGov is fixing on taking out two lanes of parking / rush-hour lanes betwixt Geary and Masonic. It’s not like they’re cutting down these trees to put up a condo building.

Here’s the proposal for after these old trees get cut down – it’s another “street art” project, complete with new, transplanted palm trees. Kind of an L.A. look.

Here’s what it looks like now – not an “urban forest” but this stand does have an actual “canopy,” which, of course, is unusual since forests, by definition, aren’t urban.

P1200957-copy

I can’t see anything online yet, but the flier says Judgment Day will be on September 2nd, 2015 – 5:00 PM in Room 416 at City Hall.

Germinator 2: Judgment Day – Interim Mayor Ed Lee Wants to Kill All These Street Trees on Masonic – Public Protests April 27th

Tuesday, April 21st, 2015

At first the notices were white.

The Public protested the white notices, so now the follow-up notices are here. They’re yellow:

P1210569 copy

One assumes that tree lovers will show up at this DPW meeting on April 27th and DPW will (sort of) listen to them for two minutes each and then most of the hundreds of sidewalk trees on this 3000-foot stretch of Masonic Avenue will get chipped later on this year.

One assumes.

Ironically, SFGov Plans to Remove This Actual Urban Tree Canopy from Masonic and Geary – Aesthetics vs. Safety, Again

Monday, April 13th, 2015

Now I say ironically because it’s standard practice for our local pols to talk about San Francisco’s “urban canopy” as if we were close to having one already IRL.

But here’s an actual canopy, on Masonic near Geary, that’s doomed for the chipper because of some bogus art project called “Points of Departure.”

P1200957 copy

One supposes it’ll be a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine of the big new federally-funded, state-funded “Streetscape” / pork-barrel project go down? (Our SFMTA is working, slowly but surely, on this gig what has turned out to be less “shovel-ready” than advertised…)

One local, beloved blogger has gone as far as calling this slow-motion disaster Arbor-Geddon 2015.

Now here’s a little history about how SFGov works, courtesy of San Francisco Mayor (1996-present) / local lobbyist Willie Brown:

“I wanted the trees gone, but knew I’d face stiff resistance both from homeless advocates and tree supporters. We brought in a tree expert and wouldn’t you know it, some of the trees had a blight. I issued an emergency order, and that night park workers moved in and dug up and bagged the trees. By the time the TV cameras arrived the next morning the trees were on their way to a tree hospital, never to return. So bless me, father, for I too have sinned. I just did it before everyone had a cell phone camera.”

Delightful story, Willie. Simply delightful.

Anyway, kiss this small grove, improbably near a big #38 MUNI stop, good-bye.