Posts Tagged ‘save’

SFMTA Votes Tomorrow to “Save” the #21 Hayes MUNI Bus Line? – Two Bus Stop Placed 15 Seconds Apart at Central

Monday, April 20th, 2015

I don’t know if I’m explaining things the right way here, so I’m offering you, the Gentle Reader, a copy of the postcard I just got in the mail.

All right, let’s review: MUNI has two bus stops between Central and Masonic on the same short block of Hayes Street. This is absurd.

Our SFMTA wants to correct this Accident of History by removing the inbound stop at Central. This would leave two inbound stops for nearby residents of the 94117 – at Lyon and at Masonic.

The idea forwarded by the owner of Central Coffee, that making the inefficient 21 Hayes line (which still has waaaaay too many stops) more efficient will instead make it less efficient (leading to its termination), is absurd.

Here’s the latest outrage, this corporate mailer recently sent to hundreds(?) (or thousands) of residents who live near Central Coffee:

P1210758 copy

P1210755 copy

 

[I should add, don’t try to click over to the “NOPA-Rider” website, as the site isn’t functioning  and I’m getting a phishing warning when using both Chrome and IE. I don’t exactly understand how browsers work and why there are so many false alarms for legitimate sites, so, anyway, my advice is to not to click over there.]

I’ll tell you, if I were a rent-seeking coffee-shop owner and I wanted to selfishly dictate how the #21 should be operated, I wouldn’t go about things this way.

And I’ll ask you, Gentle Reader, why would somebody living in the SoPA (Southeast of Panhandle Area) be so so concerned about a bus line what’s serving the NoPA (Northeast of Panhandle Area)? One would think a Haight Street resident wouldn’t even consider The Great Speeding-Up Of The Bus Stop-Clogged 21 Hayes a bad thing, much less worthy of opposing with such a massive campaign.

So here’s the difference.

I think that the 21 Hayes should have the following number of bus stops inbound betwixt Central and Masonic:

Zero.

Our SFMTA thinks that the 21 Hayes should have the following number of bus stops inbound betwixt Central and Masonic:

Zero as well, prolly.

Our SFMTA is proposing that the 21 Hayes should have the following number of bus stops inbound betwixt Central and Masonic:

One, for now.

And the owner of Central Coffee thinks that the 21 Hayes should have the following number of bus stops inbound betwixt Central and Masonic:

Two, at least.

I mean, right? Like if having bus stops just nine houses apart* is such a good thing for “efficiency,” why shouldn’t we add a third stop in the middle of the block so that the stops would be merely four houses apart – is that going to be the next proposal?

(You think I’m a MUNI fanboy? Hardly. FTR, MUNI sucks, hard.)

Anywho, tomorrow is the Big Day for this decision, supposedly.

One hopes the SFMTA will be able to handle this kind of pressure properly.

One hopes…

*I’m srsly. This is the current situation. This is what our poorly-run SFMTA is trying to fix.

“Central Coffee Tea & Spice” in the Western Addition Jeopardizes Its High 4.5 Star Yelp Rating with an Absurd Campaign Against the #21 Hayes

Tuesday, April 14th, 2015

[UPDATE: It’s gotten worse – here’s one of the bulk mail postcards that just went out. Apparently, the big meeting to decide this issue comes tomorrow, April 21st, 2015.]

Here it is, a flyer posted at Central Coffee Tea & Spice, 1696 Hayes:

7J7C5372 copy

And here’s some background from Nuala Sawyer of Hoodline

First things first, MUNI sucks and the SFMTA is the reason why. (If you don’t believe that, I’ll assume that you work in the marketing department of MUNI or that you’re a blogger what has taken SFMTA money in some sort of MUNI marketing effort.)

Having said that, we should all applaud the SFMTA’s attempts to suck less by trying to remove bus stops*, especially when we’re talking about the #21 Hayes line. 

But now, according to the owner of Central Coffee, the SFMTA’s attempt to improve the efficiency of the 21 Hayes is somehow going to end up killing the entire line so we should lobby Ed Reiskin and the board of the SFMTA to “save the 21 Hayes?”

WTH. Here’s the sitch right now. The coffee shop is in the middle and the bus stop that “needs” to be saved (marked by Google Maps with a blue square) is cattywumpus across the street:

Capturefsff copy

How many freaking bus stops does one side of one short block of Hayes need? As you can see, it has two right now. Does the owner of Central Coffee favor adding in even more stops, you know, since bus stops are so great?

(I’ll tell you, there’s a People Love Us On Yelp sticker right next to the flyer you can see above and, I’ll tell you, a business owner on Polk just went through a Yelp War over a similar issue just a month or two ago. So much so, he took actually down his Yelp sign, so hounded he felt.)

This will not stand, this aggression against Frisco coming from Central Coffee.

This will not stand, Man.

*Our situation is exactly like what brought about the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 – everybody knew we had too many military bases, but no pol would tolerate the shutdown of a base in his/her district. Then BRAC came along to save the day. 

If a New 36-Story, 416-Foot Tall Condo Building Belongs Anywhere in SF, It Belongs at 1481 Post

Wednesday, September 24th, 2014

Insert “sliver” building here, right in the middle, just to the left of Geary:

P1160168 copy

Why not?

1481 Post is like 8 Washington, and yet not like 8 Washington…

Great Drought of 2014: Ten Percent Mandatory Outdoor Irrigation Conservation Measures Announced for San Francisco

Tuesday, August 12th, 2014

As expected, here it is:

“Tuesday, August 12, 2014

S.F. Public Utilities Commission Ratifies 10% Mandatory Outdoor Irrigation Conservation Measures

Restrictions Comply with State Water Resources Control Board’s New Emergency Regulations for Outdoor Urban Water Use

San Francisco, CA – On August 12th, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) passed new emergency outdoor irrigation restrictions for all of its retail customers. The regulations feature a mandate to reduce potable water use by 10% for outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscape and turf. They also require that the SFPUC implement its plan to reduce wasteful outdoor water use.

The new restrictions for outdoor irrigation take effect mid-September and last through June 30, 2015. Only water customers that have metered irrigation accounts will be issued a usage allocation based on a 10% reduction of their 2013 usage. During that September – June timeframe, customers’ usage must not exceed their allocation. Customers will be able to track how they are doing on each bill. At the next scheduled meeting of the SFPUC, Commissioners will consider an excess use charge of 2x the billing rate for every unit in excess of a customer’s allocation. While metered irrigation accounts are the easiest to track, the SFPUC is asking all of its retail customers to comply. Edible food gardens and areas that are irrigated with non-potable water are exempted.

Concurrently, the SFPUC will also be implementing an education-first plan to reduce wasteful outdoor water use by prohibiting certain water-wasting activities, which include:

· Watering outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes excess runoff;
· Using a hose, without a shut-off nozzle, for any purpose;
· Using drinking water in non- recirculating fountains or decorative water devices; and,
· Washing down driveways/sidewalks except for health and safety purposes.

The exemption for health and safety purposes is strictly limited to: the removal of human and animal waste; the removal of liquids and substances that cause odors, sticky, slick and unsafe conditions for pedestrians; and, the elimination of conditions that attract insects and vermin.
Reports of water waste will be tracked through 311. The SFPUC will be focusing on education and training, not policing and fining. Reported water wasters will be sent a warning notice for reported violations. Only after three warning notifications, clear documentation, and a site-visit by SFPUC staff, will citations be considered. Fines will start at $100 per violation and will require approval by the SFPUC General Manager before issuance. Fines are a last resort only and appeals will be routed through the City Controller’s office.
The new regulations will assist San Francisco in meetings its 10% conservation request. Fortunately, customers have consistently met and exceeded the 10% voluntary conservation request this summer. This savings-spree is making up for lost time earlier in the year when customers were not meeting their goals.

- Total Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System storage stands at 61% of maximum storage capacity.

- As of August 4, total water savings has dramatically swelled to 3.9 billion gallons of water – almost triple from what it was on June 23.

- If the current conservation trend continues, the SFPUC projects meeting the 10% savings goal for the entire year. This will stave off the need for additional system wide water restrictions this year.

“We don’t know when this drought will end,” said SFPUC General Manager Harlan L. Kelly, Jr. “The mandatory outdoor irrigation reduction is a small, but important step as we continue conserving and diversifying our precious water supplies.”

The SFPUC provides reliable, high quality drinking water to 2.6 million customers in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda counties. Updates and additional information will be available at sfwater.org/conservation.

Uh Oh: The “Parking Angels” App is Coming – Something Like This Could Cost the Corrupt SFMTA MUNI DPT a Lot of Money

Monday, August 4th, 2014

What’s this, a way for people to band together against our corrupt SFMTA?

You tell me, Gentle Reader

Hey, what would you do if you knew you were spilling tens of thousands of gallons of petroleum into our San Francisco Bay?

Our SFMTA had a question like this. It failed. Oh well. See below.

Guess what, our SFMTA now wants you to vote yourself a rent increase in order to give it more money. You’ll have your chance to vote on it November 4th, 2014.

Ah memories:

SAN FRANCISCO (November 2, 2009) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking action against the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency following federal violations of the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

On the page:

Overview and Location of Facilities

The City and County of San Francisco is a municipality organized under the laws of California that operates the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (“SFMTA”) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”). The SFMTA operates a diverse fleet of trolley cars, street cars, light rail, alternative fuel vehicles and 495 diesel buses that are serviced and re-fueled at facilities owned and operated by the SFMTA. The SFPUC provides water, wastewater and municipal power services.

Between November and December 2005, approximately 940 barrels (39,488 gallons) of red dye diesel fuel were discharged from one of the Municipality’s underground storage tanks (USTs) at the John M. Woods Motor Coach Facility (Woods Motor Coach Facility). The diesel spread through a piping system into a storm drain, through wastewater collection piping to a pump station, into Islais Creek and eventually San Francisco Bay.

The discharge was caused by a ruptured hose. The leak continued for several days, as sensors, flashers and alarm reports and other leak indicators were ignored. This failure by SFMTA to comply with federal requirements for the management of USTs resulted in the release of diesel fuel and Clean Water Act discharge and pretreatment violations.

After this spill, EPA conducted inspections at several of SFMTA’s facilities and identified violations of EPA’s spill prevention regulations at three of them: Flynn, Kirkland, and Marin.

The five facilities covered by this settlement are in the City and County of San Francisco:

  • Woods Motor Coach Facility – 1095 Indiana Street
  • Flynn Motor Coach Facility – 15th and Harrison Street
  • Kirkland Motor Coach Facility – 151 Beach Street
  • Marin Fuel Stand – 1399 Main Street
  • Southeast Water Collection System Pump Station”

Spot the Missing Building: Motorcyclist’s Polished Helmet Offers a Fish-Eye View of the Western Addition

Monday, August 4th, 2014

Take a close look at this motorcyclist’s helmet on Geary – in between the two tall buildings, you can see the coming construction site of 1481 Post.

Dude gives off a Hank Schrader vibe:

Some people who opposed the 8 Washington Wall on the Waterfront project just might support a tall spire on the top of Cathedral Heights, right?

I think so.

Anyway, all moto helmets should be chromed, huh?

A 36-Story, 416-Foot Tall Condo Building at Post and Gough? Some Hate 1481 Post Already – A Dramaturgical Dyad

Tuesday, July 1st, 2014

Well, here it is, the proposed 1481 Post Street, from the ADCO Group.

And here’s your welcome:

Welcome to 1481 Post Street: An Iconic Residence Reflecting Years of Neighborhood Input and an Innovative Approach to Urban Growth.”

And here’s one possible future for Geary and Gough, as “seen” from our Chinese Consulate on Laguna:

Click to expand

And here comes the backlash, here’s the concomitant anti-1481 Post Street group, SOS Cathedral Hill, or SAVE CATHEDRAL HILL, or something like that.

That’s what you call a dramaturgical dyad, redolent of 8 Washington, IMO.

SocketSite has the deets.

BTW, this group is claiming “No Community Outreach,” but what they really mean is no community outreach this month or no community outreach right now.

If anybody has a non-maudlin argument or anecdote or something against this building, I’d like to hear it. ‘Cause, so far, I haven’t heard it yet.

It seems to me that 1481 Post would slot right in with all the others in this part of the Western Addition, in this part of town betwixt the Tenderloin and J-Town…

The 2007 “Stanyan Street Commons,” a Community Garden near USF, is Now Lost to History

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014

Back in the late aughts Victory Gardens were all over the place, remember? Let’s look back to that time in aught-seven when “guerrilla gardeners” took over the land in front of some lady’s apartment complex at Fulton and Stanyan and just started gardening.

It was beautiful vandalism, man. The venture had lots of support from the City and NGOs, that’s for sure. But things didn’t work out.

Here’s how it looked back in 2007…

Via IndyBay, image reversed for your pleasure

…and here’s how it looked in the summer of 2010, during what should have been the start of harvest, harvest time. Weepin’ time, reapin’ time, harvest, harvest time:

And now the transformation is complete. Here’s the scene in 2014 – the former garden is now a fully-paved parking lot:

And now you know the rest of the story…

Coalition of 48 San Francisco NIMBY Groups Opposes the Coming Changes to Masonic Avenue

Friday, November 15th, 2013

Well, this is news to me. See below.

I’m not seeing a path for victory for the SaveMasonic people, just saying. I mean the SFMTA wants to spend money, the money was gotten, so why would the SFMTA change its mind all of a sudden now that it’s gotten what it wanted?

A recent window sign seen on, where else, on Masonic:

All the deets:

“Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 – 8th St
Oakland CA 94607
Re: Agenda Item 9(a) – OBAG – Masonic Avenue Complete Streets — MTC,
September 25, 2013

Dear Ms Worth:

The Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN) is an “umbrella” organization comprised
of 48 individual San Francisco neighborhood associations representing thousands of the city’s
residents.
At its September General Assembly delegates from the CSFN member organizations voted
unanimously in support the following resolution.
Resolved, that the CSFN urges that elected officials, the SFMTA, the
SFCTA, and the MTC must
1. rescind and withdraw their approval and support of the current
Masonic Ave redesign plan,
2. adopt an alternate plan that maintains traffic flow,
3. retain curbside parking on Masonic Ave,
4. establish a better, alternate bicycle route on nearby streets, and
5. install pedestrian safety improvements.
The proposed Masonic Avenue Complete Streets project is estimated to cost $18 million at a
minimum. This money could be better spent. Many affected residents did not receive notice of the
project; adequate EIR has not been performed.
The Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, which reflects citywide neighborhood concerns,
passed this motion unanimously. We urge you to take into account deeply-felt neighborhood
concerns about this. A large part of the city will be negatively impacted by this ill-thought-out
plan. These plans for Masonic Avenue would thwart neighbors’ efforts for real improvement.
In reviewing the plan that you now have before you, we found that there will be significant
impacts that warrant careful inspection and consideration.
CSFN respectfully and very strongly urges you to withdraw the Masonic Avenue
Complete Streets project from OBAG funding until such time as it can be
meaningfully studied, reviewed, and presented to the public.
Thank you for your careful deliberations in this matter; we appreciate your support and
action.

Sincerely,
Judith Berkowitz

President

Cc: Vice Chair Dave Cortese, Alicia C. Aguirre, Tom Azumbrado, Tom Bates, David Campos,
Bill Dodd, Dorene M. Giacopini, Federal D. Glover, Scott Haggerty, Anne W. Halsted,
Steve Kinsey, Sam Liccardo, Mark Luce, Jake MacKenzie, Joe Pirzynski, Jean Quan,
Bijan Sartipi, James P. Sperling, Adrienne J. Tissier, Scott Wiener; Kimberly Hughes,
Georgia Lambert

Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods Resolution Regarding Masonic
Avenue Complete Streets

Whereas, Masonic Avenue is an arterial road used daily by 32,000 vehicles, 13,000 bus riders,
over 1,000 pedestrians; and
Whereas, the proposed Masonic Avenue redesign will permanently remove two traffic lanes during
rush hours resulting in increased not reduced congestion on Masonic and surrounding
streets; and
Whereas, pedestrian safety will be lessened, not strengthened; pedestrians boarding the bus or
crossing the street must step over the bicycle lane; and
Whereas, EMS response time will be reduced; new traffic lanes are inadequate for wide emergency
vehicles; and
Whereas, the loss of 167 parking places will adversely affect residents, disabled, seniors, visitors
and others; and
Whereas, MTA counted 31 bicyclists during peak hours on Masonic Ave; nearby Baker St. with
less than 10% of Masonic Ave traffic provides an alternate bicycle route; therefore be it
Resolved, that the CSFN urges that elected officials, the SFMTA, the SFCTA, and the MTC must

1. rescind and withdraw their approval and support of the current Masonic Ave
redesign plan,
2. adopt an alternate plan that maintains traffic flow,
3. retain curbside parking on Masonic Ave,
4. establish a better, alternate bicycle route on nearby streets, and
5. install pedestrian safety improvements.

Hey SFMTA! Why Not “Complete” Polk Street All the Way to Grove and Eliminate These Parking Spaces in Front of City Hall?

Friday, April 26th, 2013

OMG, would you look at this?

I mean check out all these deadly, beastly automobiles parked on Polk, the very same street that the SFMTA is trying to “complete” don’t you know:

Click to expand

I know, why don’t you take out all these spaces and replace them with a separated bike lane or something, SFMTA?

After all, Transit First, right?

Oh, what’s that? These are the spaces that the Board of Supervisors and their aides park in for free every day so that’s where you just happened to end your campaign of completion?

But don’t you care about safety, SFMTA?

Mmmmm….

“This project seeks to implement aesthetic and safety improvements for all users of Polk Street between McAllister and Union Streets. In accordance with the City’s Transit First policy, improvements will primarily be focused on people who walk, use transit and ride a bicycle along Polk Street. The project is funded by Proposition B General Obligation Bonds and is part of an overall citywide effort to curb pedestrian and bicycle collisions and to provide a safe north-south connection for people on bicycles. Pedestrian and bicyclist collision and injury data on Polk Street point to a corridor in need of safety improvements for all those who share the road. In fact, the southern portion from Sacramento to McAllister Streets is part of the 5% of San Francisco streets that have more than half of the City’s most severe pedestrian collisions.”