Congratulations to Norman Yee, our incoming District 7 Supervisor, who will be sworn in in January 2013; and thank you, Sean Elsbernd, for representing us for so many years.
It was a nail-biting finish. Norman Yee initially won 9182 of the first-choice votes, or just over 29% of votes cast. But with Ranked Choice Voting, an election can take days to be called, as losing candidates are eliminated and their votes reapportioned to the voters’ second and third choices. That’s what happened in the D7 race: For some time, it looked as though the second and third choices would bring FX Crowley to the top. There were 31,000 votes (and each voter could cast three votes for their three favorite candidates, ranking them in order of preference.)
By the final round of eliminations, Round 6, only FX Crowley and Norman Yee were left. It was very very close. The final count (as of 21st November) was: Norman Yee, 12505; and FX Crowley, 12373. It’s a difference of 132 votes.
I’m rounding off here; if you want to see the actual results, there’s a neat table at the SF Elections website, HERE.
This website has a couple of earlier reports on Norman Yee’s positions when I was writing about the positions of various candidates; here is the report from the Golden Gate Heights candidates’ panel; and here are his views on the “San Francisco Overlook” project at the dead end on Crestmont.
As everyone probably knows by now, District 7 is voting for a new supervisor this November. There are nine candidates.
The steep hillside above the planned development
The Crestmont-Mt. Sutro- Forest Knolls Neighborhood Preservation Coalition spoke with four of them (or their representatives) about their positions on the controversial San Francisco Overlook project.
(This is a project that plans to build 34 apartments on a steep slope at the end of a cul-de-sac below another steep slope where the houses are supported by concrete pilings. That Background is HERE. The public comment period on the recent Draft Environment Impact Report ended in June 2012; an appeal’s been filed through a lawyer HERE.)
I’m republishing the position statements here from the coalition website (www. CrestmontPreservation.org) with permission and minor edits and formatting differences – and added pictures.
—————————————————
BULLETIN from Crestmont-Mt.Sutro-Forest Knolls Neighborhood Preservation Coalition
Positions on SF Overlook Development Position Statements by Four District 7 Supervisorial Candidates
We have met and spoken with four of the major District 7 Supervisorial candidates, or their representatives, and provided them with extensive materials outlining the reasons why our neighborhoods are united against a project the size of the proposed San Francisco Overlook development. We solicited their comments for distribution to the Crestmont-Mt.Sutro-Forest Knolls community.
The following responses were provided by FX Crowley, Joel Engardio, Mike Garcia and Norman Yee (in alphabetical order):
FX CROWLEY:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Crestmont-Mt. Sutro-Forest Knolls Neighborhood Preservation Coalition regarding the SF Overlook Development. I share the Coalition’s concern over the current DEIR [Draft Environmental Impact Report]. The developer’s vision for the project appears too dense for the surrounding neighborhood.
The developer must address the issue of compliance with the neighborhood’s Mount Sutro Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions. Given the site’s history of frequent landslides, the developer should also provide a “design-level” geotechnical review, especially since that data is required to fully identify the project’s environmental impacts and adequate mitigation measures.
I support the Coalition’s request to consider alternatives to this project. As Supervisor, I will be an advocate for the Crestmont-Mt. Sutro-Forest Knolls neighborhood as I am for my own Lakeshore neighborhood and surrounding community. I will ensure that any proposed building development is properly vetted and neighbors’ concerns are addressed going forward.
I oppose the San Francisco Overlook development. It’s a matter of common sense. When we have homes hanging out over one of the steepest hills in San Francisco, supported by concrete poles, do we really want to begin moving earth for a major development and risk destabilizing the area? Why risk a landslide?
I’m sure the developers will make a good case that everything can be built safely. But there’s also the issue of everyone’s safety when it comes to getting firetrucks and ambulances down that one, little road to serve all the new residents. Then there’s the parking nightmare — and if you don’t want to drive, where’s the nearest bus line? None of this makes sense.
I’m certainly not anti-development. I believe San Francisco needs to grow for the future. I also believe District 7 needs to play its part to provide more housing in places like Park Merced. But the development on Crestmont Drive is not a good fit. Neither are condo towers in Miraloma Park. We have to be smart about development. As your supervisor, I will work for you and not for the special interests that back other candidates. That means I can be an advocate for what’s truly good for the city and the residents of District 7. I am the only candidate that the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed for supervisor in District 7. I hope you read why the Chronicle says I have “the right stuff” to represent you. It’s reprinted on my website: www.engardio.com
engardio2012@gmail.com
MIKE GARCIA:
In an effort to familiarize myself with all the issues involved having to do with the San Francisco Overlook Development, I met with Dr. Sobol, Dr. Gorman, and other concerned neighbors. They provided me with a great deal of information and expressed their concerns and took me on a tour of the site for the proposed development. I later also talked with Alice Barkley, the attorney for the neighbors, and an old friend whom I know and respect from my years on the Board of Appeals. I then talked to Jessica Berg, of Berg/Davis Public Affairs, the consultants to the developer, Gary Testa. I met with Ms. Berg and Adam Phillips, the project lead, who gave me information from their perspective about the project.
My understanding is that what is left in the process is the acceptance or rejection of the Draft EIR, to be followed by a final EIR, which is appealable to the Board of Supervisors. Also to be completed, is the analysis required under the Slope Protection Act, passed by the Board of Supervisors in 2008. My understanding of the Slope Protection Act is that while safety having to do with structural engineering issues is important, so are issues having to do with neighborhood character. After the slope analysis, another step in the process, or perhaps part of the process required under the Slope Protection Act, is a peer-review overseen by the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection at which point an analysis is made having to do with the engineering feasibility of the proposed project. In addition to all this process, yet to be held, a site permit then has to be attained from the Department of Building Inspection (DBI). That permit is appealable to the Board of Appeals. The point being, there is a considerable amount of process still to be had, and it would be a highly unusual project that goes through this much process without getting whittled down. The real issue for your neighborhood is just how much it gets whittled down.
Because I have 7 years of experience in land use having served on the Board of Appeals I am reluctant to ever express an opinion without seeing all the facts. Allow me, however, to say this – without having put pencil to paper I feel as though the project is economically infeasible. I also, again without having seen all the facts, am leaning heavily toward thinking that a considerable amount of mitigation has to take place.
Please let me be emphatic about this, regardless of where I land on this or any other project that takes place in District 7, which is not to indicate that I favor this development, it is my intent, where there are tensions between the developer and the neighbors to always be willing to have conversations with the developer about mitigation measures that would alleviate the concerns of that neighborhood. In closing, I have a record on the Board of Appeals of opposing projects that do great harm to neighborhood character, particularly if there are concomitant life-safety issues. Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to your request for a position statement on the SF Overlook Development.
From what I’ve heard, I would support the neighborhood against a development of this size, and favor a smaller development such as the alternative proposed as Plan B* in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
*Alternative B in the DEIR, p. 274, is a Reduced Project Alternative: 16 single-family residential buildings, with 38 parking spaces. =====================================================
REMINDER: Please display the poster in your window and urge your neighbors to also display the poster! If you need a poster, please call Sam Sobol, 415-640-3869 or email info@crestmontpreservation.org.
I subscribe to the Park Station Police newsletter for our area, and glance through it quickly to check if there’s anything in our neighborhood. Usually, there’s nothing. This week, there were a few reports.
On October 14th, 4:20 AM at Crestmont & Christopher: Malicious Mischief, “A vile vandal damaged the lock to the victim’s toolbox.”
On October 16th, 6.30 a.m at 400 Crestmont: Theft from a locked vehicle.
A bit of a crime-wave, but perhaps the news below takes care of it?
[Edited 16 Sept 2012 to correct and clarify the dates and time line.]
Back in December 2010mid-2008, neighbor Beverly Mack put in a request to the San Francisco MTA for traffic calming on Warren Drive, one of our neighborhood’s main streets. The issues were speeding, particularly on the curves and cut-through traffic. Warren Drive has steep slopes and blind curves, with children often present. Parents park on the street to walk their kids down to the Clarendon School via the Ashwood Lane stairs. What they asked for was two speed-bumps.
The form needs ten signatures from neighbors; they got fifteen.
SF MTA issued Beverly an acceptance letter in December 2010. In this acceptance letter, SF MTA noted that while it had accepted the application, that didn’t mean they would do anything right away.
I guess it was a fair warning, because nearly two years later, exactly nothing has happened.
Beverly called SFMTA, and found the project is currently 14th out of 39 projects. She got an email from SF MTA that said, “Sometimes this ranking does shift as new applications are accepted and meet additional criteria (vehicle speeds and volume, recorded collisions, evidence of cut-through traffic, parks and schools nearby, etc). The traffic calming program is currently being evaluated and no new applications will be reviewed until Spring 2013 which means your ranking should not change.” (By implication, they aren’t clearing any either.) It’s a funding issue, apparently.
(What I’ve heard, true or not, is that it takes actual collisions to move the project up the rankings so they start acting on it.)
ONCE THE PROJECT STARTS
Even once the project starts, it takes time to accomplish.
So there it is: Despite all the effort, it looks unlikely anything will be done for another year or two — at best.
Does anyone have any ideas? If so, email Beverly: BMack4paws at sbcglobal.net
[Edited to Add: One way to help is to call or email the SF MTA. Jeffrey Banks at 701-5331, email is Jeffrey.Banks@sfmta.com]
Meanwhile: SF MTA has a questionnaire out, seeking feedback about customer satisfaction. There’s one section where you can leave a comment. Perhaps that’s an opportunity to push this neighborhood’s needs.
The way it works is this: The criminals put a small piece of blue tape on the door (or, I suppose, the garage door) of a house – or many houses on a street. Then they come by at night to see if the tape’s been disturbed. If it isn’t removed for a number of days, they can guess that the house is unoccupied and therefore safe to break into.
Apparently, the Bernal area has had a rash of these blue-tape tags. There’s no report of subsequent break-ins, at least on the blog. But many of the neighbors there have been removing tape-tags they see.
Why does it have to be blue? I don’t know. I’d guess white masking tape would work as well.
I haven’t seen or heard of anything like this from any other source, but if you’re aware of it, let us know?
There’s a candidates forum for District 7 candidates Thursday 30 August 2012. It’s hosted by the Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association, and its President says you’re invited!
Listen to the candidates, ask questions, share refreshments.
District 7 Supervisor Candidates Forum Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association Thurs, August 30 at 7 pm at Parish Hall, Christ Church Lutheran, 1090 Quintara St at 20th Ave, San Francisco
We’re in District 7, and Supervisor Sean Elsbernd will be termed out this November. The position’s up for grabs, and now there are NINE candidates running. Here’s a 3-minute video of four of the candidates (FX Crowley, Joel Engardio, Mike Garcia, and Norman Yee) speaking at a Town Hall meeting on the Arts. (Click on the picture to go to the Youtube video.)
Click on the picture to go to the 3-minute Youtube video
Edited to Add: Andrew Bley was at that meeting, but somehow wasn’t included in the previous video (which we didn’t make, incidentally) but we’d include him with the “top candidates.” Here he is, making his point in a musical half-minute.
Click on the picture to go to the video
Here’s the list of all nine candidates, cropped from the city’s website:
I’ve met five of them thus far: Andrew Bley, FX Crowley, Joel Engardio, Mike Garcia, and Norman Yee. Over the next few weeks, in the run-up to the November election, I’m hoping to write something about platforms and views. Meanwhile, here are the websites for those who have them:
Readers who have been following along with the Crestmont Project story would be interested to know that the Mt Sutro Woods Owners Association has filed a response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
[Click HERE for the back story; and HERE for the most recent developments. The name of the project was changed to San Francisco Overlook, but as far as we know, not much else was altered from the original plan. A developer wishes to build 34 housing units at the end of a long cul-de-sac on a steep slope accessible only by driving through Forest Knolls neighborhood.]
The report was filed by the law firm McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP. The bulletin below summarizes the issues and has a link to the full letter on the Crestmont Preservation website.
Letter to Planning Department
Response to Draft EIR Update, 6-26-12
(The comment period to the Draft EIR ended June 19, 2012.)
Letter from McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP on behalf of Mt. Sutro Woods Owners Association (MSWOA):
“…we believe the DEIR is severely flawed in many respects and fails to meet minimum legal requirements as an informal document under CEQA. The DEIR needs to be supplemented with additional information, analysis and mitigation.”
REMINDER:
Please display the poster in your window and urge your neighbors to also display the poster! If you need a poster, please call Sam Sobol, 415-640-3869 or email info@crestmontpreservation.org.
As readers here will know, we have been following the issue of the Crestmont project, now called the San Francisco Overlook. This is a multiunit housing development planned for the end of Crestmont, a long cul-de-sac, and to be situated on a steep and potentially unstable hillside. (Click here for the backstory.)
The project required an Environmental Impact Report, and the Draft of that was issued recently (DEIR). The public hearing was on June 14th, 2012. There is still time to submit comments, which must be in by June 19th.
Here is the latest bulletin from Dr Sam Sobol, who is co-ordinating this battle.
BULLETIN from Crestmont-Mt.Sutro-Forest Knolls Neighborhood Preservation Coalition DEIR Hearing Report
Letters to Planning Department
Planning Commission DEIR Report & Letters to Planing DepartmentUpdate, 6-14-12
The hearing in front of the Planning Commission was held on Thursday, June 14, 2012 at City Hall. Twelve Crestmont-Forest Knolls neighbors testified about their concerns and objections to the Draft EIR. They made statements about our unique neighborhood and raised questions about various aspects of the report. There were also several neighbors who attended, but did not speak.
Traffic and safety were the main topics and it was pointed out that the EIR underestimates the increase in traffic that this development would bring and how it would impact not only Crestmont Drive, but all of Forest Knolls. The Draft EIR contains no mention of lack of a usable sidewalk on lower Crestmont, causing people to walk on the street. Other issues brought up were children playing in the street, lack of access for large fire trucks, and residents trapped with no escape route in case of emergency vehicles blocking the street. A number of speakers took issue with the statement in the report that the development would not cause a major change in the character of the neighborhood.
A Kirkham Heights neighbor spoke about her many years observing slides from the mountain. She stated that the hillside is crumbly and precarious and that a large development might lead to unforeseen consequences. A person representing the Housing Coalition, who was not a neighbor, spoke in favor of the development. The developer was not present at the hearing, but the architect of the project and his outreach representative were in attendance, though none of them spoke.
After the speakers had completed their statements, some of the Commissioners made comments regarding these statements and requested that a few additional issues be addressed in the final EIR. Commissioner Moore complimented the Planning Department staff for their good work in preparing the Draft EIR.
______________________________________
The Draft EIR Comments Period ends Tuesday, June 19, 2012.
Letters or e-mails received after that date will not be considered or responded to. If you have not yet sent in your comments to the Planning Department, please take a look at two letters posted here http://crestmontpreservation.org/news.html:
* Letter from Crestmont Preservation to the Planning Department
* Letter from a concerned neighbor citing specific deficiencies in the Draft EIR
You may wish to adapt, revise, cut & paste, etc., to express your specific concerns. Please try, as much as possible, to address specific issues, topics, or sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
The Draft EIR for the San Francisco Overlook Project is available for review online [as a PDF], http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2004.0093E_DEIR.pdf
Paper copies (510 pages) and CDs are available at the Planning Information Center (PIC) counter at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission St., San Francisco.
The more letters the Planning Department receives, the more impact our concerns will have.
ADDRESSES:
Planning Department:
Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco Planning Department,
1650 Mission St., Suite 400, SF 94103. bill.wycko@sfgov.org
REMINDER:
Please display the poster in your window and urge your neighbors to also display the poster! If you need a poster, please call Sam Sobol, 415-640-3869 or email info@crestmontpreservation.org.
This year, San Francisco reorganized its Supervisory Districts. I’ve been interested to know how the re-districting would come out, with plans of all kinds to change the boundaries this April. One proposal would have moved us (and Midtown Terrace) to District 8.
Well, the final maps are out, and we’re still in District 7. I was also pleased to see that our District includes all of Mount Sutro. One proposal had the boundary along Crestmont, which I didn’t like because actions on Mount Sutro would impact our neighborhood but we’d have less input.
[I talked about Redistricting in an earlier post, HERE.]
So here’s the map. Clicking on it will make a larger version come up.
What’s changed?
Not very much. Parnassus Heights, which is contiguous with Cole Valley, has gone into District 5. A small area East of Ocean Avenue has joined D11. A couple of small areas North of Holloway and just above the I-280 have been added.
In the map above, Forest Knolls is in pale yellow (and the forest is in green). The areas added to District 7 are in pink, and the areas subtracted, in orange.
A NEW SUPERVISOR
As some of you know, our supervisor, Sean Elsbernd, is termed out, and so there’ll be new candidates for a supervisory election. It will be held by ranked choice voting, which means you should choose the three candidates you like best and mark them in order of preference.
Who’s running (so far)?
1. Joel Engardio. He was one of the earliest to declare his candidacy. He stands for a sensible approach to city budgets, he’s small-business friendly, he supports dogs in our parks and off-leash areas, and he supports trees and urban forests. The reason I know so much about his platform is that he got in touch early. (I wrote about that HERE.)
His website is HERE. It has links to fun short (3-minute) videos about his platform: Budget, dogs, trees.
2. Norman Yee. I met Norman at a West of Twin Peaks council meeting, and today found a newsletter from him in my driveway. He’s currently president of the School Board, but we didn’t get a chance to talk about what he stands for, but HERE is his website.
3. Andrew Bley. I met him at a Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association meeting. Again, I didn’t get a chance to talk about his platform. His website is HERE.
4. F.X. Crowley. I haven’t met him yet, but HERE is his website.
5. Michael Garcia, who also I haven’t met. Again, his website is HERE.
Pretty soon, as the campaigns kick off, I expect various Neighborhood associations will start having candidate presentations. I’ll report on any I attend. Meanwhile, please feel free to comment.
[Edited to Add (22 May 2012): In the last few days, I’ve met F.X. Crowley, Andrew Bley, and Michael Garcia. I’ll be writing about them soon.]
For neighbors who have been following the Crestmont (now renamed San Francisco Overlook) battle: The Draft Enviromental Impact Report has been published. It’s time to let the city know what you think.
[Click HERE for the background on this battle, and HERE for the update.]
I received this email from Dr. Sam Sobol, who is co-ordinating the opposition.
BULLETIN from Crestmont-Mt.Sutro-Forest Knolls Neighborhood Preservation Coalition
SF OVERLOOK Development – Draft EIR Published!
Planning Commission Public Hearing, Thursday, June 7, 2012
Paper copies (510 pages) and CDs are available at the Planning Information Center (PIC) counter at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission St., San Francisco. We will post a link to the Draft EIR on our web site.
The public comment period, during which the Planning Department must respond to any objections, extends for 45 days and we urge all of our neighbors to review this document and provide feedback and objections to the Planning Department and the Planning Commissioners, as well as our Supervisor Sean Elsbernd (see addresses below). Letters and/or e-mails should be addressed to Mr. Bill Wycko and cc’d to each of the Planning Commission members and Mr. Elsbernd. The more letters the Planning Department receives, the more impact our concerns will have. You are not limited to a single letter, and each letter can address a separate issue of concern.
The Planning Commission Public Hearing will take place Thursday, June 7, 2012, Room 400, City Hall. Prepare now to join your neighbors to add your voice to our objections to this massive project which threatens to overwhelm our neighborhood. Commission meetings begin at 12:00 PM, but we will be notified of a more precise time in advance.
ADDRESSES
Planning Department: Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission St., Suite 400, SF 94103. bill.wycko@sfgov.org
REMINDER: Please display the poster in your window and urge your neighbors to also display the poster! If you need a poster, please call 415-640-3869 or email info@crestmontpreservation.org.
If you’re like me, you may use Panorama Drive to cut across the hill to get to Tower Market or Safeway or just onto Portola. We need to bear in mind that it is actually a residential neighborhood. Apparently people have been speeding, and residents have been complaining.
So the police are acting. Here’s from Captain Feeney in the Park Station newsletter:
Speeders Beware! Radar trailers have been deployed on Roosevelt and on Panorama in Midtown Terrace. Where there are radar trailers there will sometimes be officers with radar guns to enforce the speed limits in these areas. Do not assume that the trailer is out there for decoration and for us to say we have done something about improving traffic safety. We cannot be everywhere all of the time but when we are, beware! We will take enforcement action. We have received several complaints about these and other locations throughout the Park District and I assure you that we will address each of them at one time or another. Please slow down and be considerate of those who live on the street you drive on. If you or your friends drive on Roosevelt or Panorama, slow down or risk becoming a statistic.
[EDITED TO ADD (April 6, 2012): The EIR has been delayed. Please follow the Crestmont website for updates as they happen – and I’ll try to update this also.]
I received the note below from Dr Sam Sobol, who is spearheading the move to prevent this proposed development from spoiling our neighborhood. As many of you know, this has been an ongoing issue for Forest Knolls. All the access to the new building/s would be through our neighborhood. For those who have not been following it, here’s the history:
BULLETIN from Crestmont-Mt.Sutro-Forest Knolls Neighborhood Preservation Coalition SF OVERLOOK Development – Publication of Draft EIR
IMPORTANT UPCOMING DATES!
Update, 3-6-12
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the SF Overlook project at the end of Crestmont Drive will be published Wednesday, March 21, 2012.
[Edited to Add: Delayed, not sure when]
The review and comment period will end on Monday, May 7. We will mobilize all our resources at that time to make our neighborhood’s voice heard.
There will be a public hearing before the Planning Commission on Thursday, April 26. Please pencil in this date on your calendar and plan to attend this important hearing. We will need to appear in force and make sure our message is heard!
REMINDER:
Please display the poster in your window and urge your neighbors to also display the poster! If you need a poster, please call 415-640-3869 or email info@crestmontpreservation.org.
I went to the West of Twin Peaks Central Council (WTPCC) meeting last evening, at the beautiful Forest Hill clubhouse. The WTPCC is an association of associations; it has some 22 member organizations (including Forest Knolls).
COIT TOWER’S ON THE BALLOT
The Coit Tower initiative that I wrote about last time got enough signatures to go on the ballot, so you’ll be seeing it when you vote. It’s trying to push the SF Rec & Park to spend some of the visitors’ fees money to actually maintain the tower, which risks water-damage and cracks to its famous murals. WTPCC wants to write a supportive note on the ballot. It costs $200 + $2 per word. After a heated discussion about the exact wording, they decided to budget of $500 for it, and will sort out the wording later.
NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM DESTROYING TREES
Gus Guibert, Open Space committee, gave a hard-hitting presentation on what SFRPD’s Natural Areas Program (NAP) plans for Mount Davidson:
1600 trees to be felled, including clear-cutting a 3.86 area, with more tree losses expected to wind-throw;
suppression and removal of uncounted saplings under 15 feet in height;
closure of several trails.
Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said that with NAP’s budget merely $1.3 mn annually, this is an unfunded initiative. But the fact is, as I pointed out, that trees are already being killed.
(As an aside: On Mt Davidson, a number of trees have been “girdled.” If bark is removed all around the trunk of a tree, it starves to death. The San Francisco Forest Alliance (www.SFForest.net) has recently been organized to fight tree-felling, habitat destruction, use of toxic herbicides and waste of money better utilized elsewhere. I’ve joined that group. It’s trying to prevent further damage to Natural Areas including Mount Davidson.)
Separately, Sean Elsbernd discussed the America’s Cup, and also the planned new Parks Bond of $185 mn.
NERT TRAINING STARTING 15 March 2012
If anyone is interested in NERT (Emergency Response) training, it’s on offer at Aptos Middle School Thursday evenings starting March 15th and running through April 26th. It’s free, and kids (especially grade school age) are welcome with their parents. Click here for the flyer (It’s a PDF file).
JOURNALISTS HONORED
Patrick Monette-Shaw, who has been investigating Laguna Honda Hospital’s issues around its Patients Gift Fund, was awarded the James Madison Freedom of Information Award. WTPCC congratulated him. His advocacy pushed the City into a full audit of the Fund.
Mitch Bull, who publishes the Westside Observer, ran the articles. He pointed out that it’s the small neighborhood newspapers that actually have freedom of speech. (I agree. Westside Observer ran a story about Sutro Forest back in November 2009, when most papers were in lockstep favoring the Native Areas Program and tree-felling.)
(Other problems relating to Laguna Honda Hospital: Right now, it’s a loud whiny aircon system that’s eroded an estimated $50,000 each from the value of nearby homes in Midtown Terrace by rendering their yards unusable.)
I have to say I’m an admirer of neighborhood newspapers and newsletters that address day-to-day issues that impact our lives. Will blogs ever replace them? I don’t know, but I’m glad that these newspapers are available online as well. It makes their archives easy to access long after the last paper issue got tossed out.
I’ve posted here before about Joel Engardio, one of the candidates for Supervisor for District 7. (Sean Elsbernd is termed out this November.)
At the time, it was because of his forest-friendly video. (Click on the owl picture to watch the 2.5 minute video.)
He’s made another 2-minute video, this one about dogs in San Francisco. I’m not a dog-owner, but I am pleased our neighborhood is dog-friendly. As I said in In Praise of Dog-Owners — paws on the street mean eyes on the street.
Click here for Joel Engardio's dog video
If you’d like to find out where this candidate stands – clicking on the picture above will take you to the video.
A couple of weeks ago, Joel Engardio contacted me. He’s running for District 7 supervisor. (Some of you may already know – as I didn’t – that the current District 7 Supervisor, Sean Elsbernd, terms out this year.)
Joel doesn’t like the idea of wasting millions of dollars to cut down trees, close trails and deny access, use toxic pesticides on public land, and destroy habitat. He wanted to use some of the pictures from the SutroForest.com website (of which I’m webmaster) in a short video. Sure, I said. That’s a cause I believe in. (He asked separate permission for photos on the site that were taken by someone else.)
Clicking on the picture below will take you to the video he made. It’s sensible and it’s beautiful and well worth watching. (Also see the Comments below.)
He’s not a single-issue candidate, though. Here’s what his website says he stands for: Common Sense. Accountability. Fiscally Responsible. Socially Progressive.
I asked if he wanted to say something here, and he sent me this note:
I’m running for supervisor to bring more common sense and innovation to City Hall. We must champion the entrepreneurial spirit to create jobs and fund the programs we need. Throughout my career, I have fought for the social issues San Francisco cares about like marriage equality, immigration and human rights. As your supervisor, I will fight for the fiscal responsibility and government efficiency San Francisco needs to be a vital and vibrant city that works for everyone. Every effort by City Hall must be held accountable and measured for success. I’m running in District 7, but will work for all San Franciscans. That’s why people are supporting me citywide. Please join us: www.engardio.com
I don’t know who else is running for District 7, so I’ve no idea what they stand for. But I have to say I’d be pretty happy to have Joel Engardio as my Supe. Or even as a Supervisor, even if it’s not for my district…
… which could happen.
ARE WE DISTRICT 7?
Right now, Forest Knolls is in District 7. But as readers of this site will know, we’re in the middle of the ten-year redistricting exercise. The initial draft planned on moving Forest Knolls, Midtown Terrace, The Woods all into District 8. The Supervisor there is Scott Wiener, and he’s there until 2014.
Meanwhile, the West of Twin Peaks Central Council is fighting to keep these neighborhoods in D7. (The report on the meeting to discuss that is here.)
Here’s the map they propose:
(The colors indicate various neighborhood associations.)
Chances are that WoTPCC will prevail. We’ll know by April 15th, 2012. That’s when the redistricting commission has to submit its final map.
Another day, another visit to a lovely building. This time, it was the Forest Hill clubhouse to attend a meeting of the West of Twin Peaks Central Council (WTPCC). This is a group of some twenty neighborhood organizations, including Forest Knolls Neighborhood Organization, The Woods, and Mt Sutro Woods Home Owners Association.
Here’s my take on it — and things you might want to act on.
SF RPD PROPOSES A $185 mn BOND
San Francisco Rec and Parks had a bond issue back in 2008 and want to come back for more. Though Dawn Kamalanathan made an excellent presentation, with pictures of kids and playgrounds, I got a sense of skepticism from the room.
The first set of questions related to the funding: If SFRPD borrows $185 mn from the public, it will have to pay interest and then pay it back… with taxpayer funds. Where, people wanted to know, are the repayments coming from?
The second issue was that SFRPD has spent money on extensive capital improvements, but it doesn’t have the operating budget to maintain them – or indeed, anything else. One example was JP Murphy Playground, where they renovated and improved the clubhouse, and then laid off the director and closed it down. Someone else quoted a park in her area, where improvements were made and all the gardeners laid off or retired and weren’t replaced.
A third set of concerns – where I also spoke – was about the Natural Areas Program and how funding it is leading to tree felling, habitat destruction and a growing use of Tier I and Tier II pesticides. Is this a good idea to fund?
Later, someone pessimistically told me that bond measures always pass because they’re paid for by home-owners but voted for by renters – and renters are the majority in San Francisco. I dunno. I was a little puzzled at the tone of the whole thing. It was not exactly, We really need to do these specific things, and so we need the money. It was more like, We really want to raise some money, and so you tell us how you want us to spend it. Odd.
SAN FRANCISCO OVERLOOK
The steep hillside above the planned development
As readers of this site will know, the old Crestmont project slated for the dead end steep slope on Crestmont Drive has been revived in a new guise: San Francisco Overlook. (My article on the original project is here.) An Environmental Impact Report has been submitted to City Hall, and it’s under review.
The WTPCC wrote a letter in support of the Mount Sutro Woods Homeowners Association, which is spearheading the resistance to this dangerous project. (The picture here is the steep slope just above the planned development.)
COIT TOWER PRESERVATION GROUP
Jon Golinger made a presentation explaining that though the San Francisco Rec and Parks Dept (SFRPD) is making maybe $500 thousand a year from Coit Tower, it’s not maintaining the place at all. Lights are broken, signs are outdated and warped, and worst of all, there’s water damage on the historic murals. Meanwhile, SFRPD wants to change the concessionaire and rent out the space for private events.
The group is trying to get enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot to force SFRPD to spend some of the money it makes off Coit Tower in maintaining and improving it. If anyone would like to collect signatures for them before Feb 4th, please email me at fk94131@yahoo.com, I have a signature sheet. Their website is at ProtectCoitTower.org
REDISTRICTING SAN FRANCISCO
Every ten years, San Francisco’s districts are redrawn, based on population. This year, the growth in population in District 6, because of all the new building there, means all the lines have to be redrawn. Here’s the preliminary draft of the proposed new districts.
According the the tentative plan proposed by the Redistricting committee, Forest Knolls, Miraloma Park, Mount Sutro Woods, and Galewood Circle, The Woods and Twin Peaks Improvement Association would all move to District 8.
The concern for WTPCC is that such an arrangement would mean that the concerns of the homeowners of the current District 7 would be over-ridden by the quite different concerns of the voters on the other side of Twin Peaks. They have made a different proposal. In the map below, everything within the blue boundary would be D7. (The colors denote the various Neighborhood Organizations.)
I think it’s a pretty good option, but I’m concerned that Mount Sutro goes into an entirely different district. Rising as it does above our neighborhood, everything that happens there (at least on this side) affects us. If the trees are felled and there are landslides when their roots die, our neighborhood is where they’ll land. If they start using pesticides as the Natural Areas Program does regularly on Twin Peaks, it’s our area it’ll wash into. If the tree-felling destroys the windbreak, guess which neighborhood gets the wind?
Glen Canyon Park — both the canyon itself and the flat “Safeway Park” above it and adjacent to the Diamond Heights Safeway parking lot — is many things to many folk. Kids play on the grass and the play structure, there’s a ball-field, I’ve seen police cadets training by running around the paved trail of the Safeway Park. It’s a gopher haven — and a de facto dog play area where off-leash dogs run around and socialize and chase each other in circles.
It’s also part of the territory of a pair of coyotes. I’d posted about an encounter I saw between a dog and the coyotes recently. (This picture is from that event.)
DOG CHASED OFF
Yesterday’s encounter didn’t go so well. I wasn’t there, but heard about it from someone who was. Around 10 in the morning, two dogs being walked in the park spotted the coyotes. The “dogs chased after the coyotes — who then turned around and chased back. The dogs ran off and away.” Spectators helped hunt for the dogs; one was found, but the other is still missing as of this post. [ETA: Found!] Quoting from a message we received from Avrum Shepard of the West of Twin Peaks Council:
Xena is all-black, smooth coat, about 25 lb., pointy ears. She was last seen at the edge of Safeway Park in Diamond Heights. She’s very, very shy and won’t come near you, so please just call … [ETA: Phone number removed, not needed now].
I really hope Xena gets back unscathed and in good shape. [Edited to Add: She was found the following morning, around 3 a.m., according to Avrum.]
KEEPING YOUR DOG SAFE
Coyotes don’t have much interest in people, unless someone is feeding them — and that, thankfully, doesn’t appear to be happening in San Francisco. I actually saw a coyote one night in the park. It was hunting gophers. I was taking a walk. I caught it in the beam of my flashlight, and yelled. I needn’t have bothered yelling; the moment I flashed my light on it, it was gone.
However, coyotes are very aware of dogs, which are from the same animal family. (They’re canis latrans, dogs are canis lupus familiaris.) Dogs are potential rivals, potential enemies, even potential friends (though it’s probably not a good idea to permit or encourage such friendships).
What this means is, Glen Park shouldn’t be treated as an off-leash area, even in the day time. The easiest way to keep a dog safe is to keep it leashed; it won’t be tempted to chase after the coyote pair even if it spots them, and a coyote is not going to chase a dog that’s up close to a person.
Rec and Park have put notices everywhere, saying there are coyotes around. They’ve put big notices saying it’s not meant to be an off-leash area for dogs. I can see why people ignore the signs. Dogs need a place to play, and this is convenient and friendly. It’s a delight to watch them romp, and one of the reasons I like to walk there.
But it’s not a good idea. If it goes on, it’s only a matter of time before it ends badly for the dogs or the coyotes or both.
This is the second note that SF SAFE sent me, that I mentioned in the previous post. It’s relevant to most of us, so I thought I’d publish it here. (SAFE is a community crime prevention organization sponsored in cooperation with the San Francisco Police Department.
SECURITY CONCERNS FOR HOUSES
AND OTHER SMALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OF TRADITIONAL (MOSTLY WOOD) CONSTRUCTION
Most Homes Can be Secured by Methods that are Cost-Effective, and Aesthetically Acceptable
Definition of Burglary (Section 459 in the California Penal Code): Burglary is simply entering a premise for the purpose of committing a theft or a felony. (The definition does not require forced entry.)
The Good News and Bad News
The bad news is that the average home is not difficult to enter without a key. The good news is that preventing intrusion can usually be accomplished with cost-effective measures that do not detract from the appearance of your house.
About Half of Residential Burglaries are Unforced Entries
Most burglaries and other serious crimes involve some degree of opportunism. Burglars often watch a group of houses from the street, a park, or some other vantage point. They notice schedules and patterns of the people coming and going. They also notice small valuables (such as laptop computers) being carried in, or lying on a table that is visible through a window. They are willing to do significant climbing to access an open window. While some people assume that climbing to a window would be blatant, the burglar considers it an opportunity.
What about the Other Half of Residential Burglaries ?
Force is used to make entry in about half of residential burglaries. The most common tool for a burglar is a prying tool, usually a simple screw driver. A great deal of force can be applied to a door with such a tool, without making much noise. Some burglars do break glass to gain entry to a house, but usually not large panes of glass. The glass most often broken in residential burglary is a small pane in a window on which the glass is sectioned into small panes. After breaking one pane of glass the burglar reaches through and turns the interior handle on the lock. Lack of visibility to the window from the street or neighboring properties increases this vulnerability. Avoid adding a lock that requires a key for exit, which is against the code because it could prevent your escape in an emergency.
Most Residential Burglaries Occur During the Day
Most residential burglaries occur during the day as the burglars usually prefer to enter when the resident(s) are not home. They want to get in and out without being detected. Always check who is at your door when somebody rings or knocks. This does not mean that you should open the door to a stranger, but speak to them through the door to make your presence known. If at any point the person acts suspiciously, or is in any way aggressive or belligerent, call the police.
Some burglars do enter homes at night while residents are sleeping. Still most of these burglaries do not result in assault as long as the resident does not try to stop the burglar. San Francisco Police refer to burglary of an occupied residential unit as a “hot prowl”.
So What About an Alarm System?
A burglar alarm on a dwelling unit can serve as a good back-up communications tool for security. If despite your reasonable efforts to maintain good physical and procedural security, a burglar still enters your dwelling, the alarm should help limit their time inside if not lead to their arrest. Keep in mind an alarm does not physically prevent anything from happening. Maintain good physical security so that you are not over-reliant on the alarm system.
If your dwelling unit is shared by several people coming and going on different schedules, then all members of the household should discuss the responsibilities of using an alarm system before purchasing one. All occupants must in fact be out of the house when the interior motion sensors are armed. (Or at least occupants must not enter zones in the house where motion-sensors are armed.). Arming only perimeter sensors, and not interior motion-sensors, will help in some houses. Alarms are not usually recommended for common areas of multiunit residences.
Visibility and Upkeep, Deterrents or Attractors
Visibility and general upkeep are very important factors in preventing crime at or near a property. Some people question if increased visibility and attractiveness of a property will actually attract the burglars. The answer is that you want to make the improvements in a manner that is advantageous for prevention: Minimizing obstructions to visibility, using adequate lighting, and general upkeep of properties allows residents, neighbors, and police more opportunity to observe the area and recognize suspicious activity. As many criminals are opportunists, they prefer to target areas where their activity can appear casual and discreet without having to actively hide.
Take the Initiative
Many people forgo making improvements to the security of their homes for the fear of just thinking about it. If they knew exactly what to do, they would do it. However, prolonged worrying about crime without addressing one’s own vulnerabilities actually contributes to anxiety and dysfunction. Most residents who have been burglarized say it’s better and more reassuring to become educated on the topic and implement the necessary improvements. A security assessment of a home instructs the resident how to strengthen its security so it can better defend itself against burglary. This is analogous to a self defense class that teaches people how to protect themselves against physical attack. Then you can run your errands, go to work or on vacation with a justified sense of security and comfort rather than with anxiety
or a false sense of security.
Neighborhood Watch- Crime Prevention as a Collective Effort
In addition to strengthening the security of your home you may want to consider (if you have not already) establishing a Neighborhood Watch on your block. Neighborhood Watch is a very effective process for neighbors to acquire all the essentials for practicing awareness and communication in an organized fashion with the police to prevent crime in the immediate area. Call Oona Gilles-Weil, SAFE’s Program Director (415-553-1982) if you would like to start a Neighborhood Watch, or ask any questions about that program.
Recently, the Forest Knolls Neighborhood Organization passed round flyers with safety tips and SF Parks Station Police phone numbers. One of them used information from the organization SF SAFE, so we asked permission to use it.
They not only gave us permission to use their copyright material, they sent us another useful document we’ll post later: Security Concerns for Houses.
For now, here it is, (with emphasis added):
Residential Burglary Prevention Tips 10 Best Tips for Residential Security
1. Keep doors and windows locked when away from the home. Approximately half of all residential burglaries are made via unforced entries.
2. To lock a door or window means it is held tightly in place, and does not budge when pushed, pulled, or lifted. Even if a window is open for ventilation, (no more than three inches), it should be locked tight in that position to eliminate movement.
3. In addition to being equipped with good locks, a door and door jamb should be of sound construction.
4. Garage Security: Burglars see the average garage as a not-so-secure cache of valuables. Generally the larger garages that store more cars, experience more entries and exits, and hence more chances for a burglar’s opportunistic entry.
a. Disconnect any exterior electric key switches or electronic number pads that open your garage door. Use either a remote control opener or a key.
b. Bikes in a locked garage need to be locked securely to a sturdy bike rack (such as with a motorcycle chain and lock), at least as securely as when the bike is parked outside in public.
c. Most storage lockers are designed for storing non-valuables. A secure storage compartment has sturdy walls, doors and locks like the entryway of a building.
d. A locked vehicle in a locked garage does not keep laptops, purses, PDAs, backpacks secure. Remove all valuables.
5. Keep the property in good repair and appearance as much as possible. Good maintenance enhances the look of good security. Maintain visibility.
6. Mark your valuables for identification and recovery. Keep an up-to-date inventory of your valuables, include serial numbers, photographs, and physical description of each item. Learn about the Operation Identification Program by calling SAFE. Try not to keep valuables in a visible location in your home.
7. Install a 180 degree wide angle door viewer on your front door and look before opening it.
8. Be alert when answering unsolicited visitors and callers. Do not provide entry or information to people until you have determined who they are and that you have reason to provide such access.
9. Consider having an alarm system installed as a back up to the physical and personal security measures you have taken. Obtain estimates from at least three companies before purchasing a system.
10. Join or establish a SAFE Neighborhood Watch on your block to network and plan a crime prevention strategy for your block. Contact SAFE at (415) 553-1984 for more information.
If you see any suspicious activity, immediately report it to the police at (415) 553-0123. Call 9-1-1 in an emergency.
Be prepared to provide a description of suspects involved.
“This is a local issue,” a neighbor said, asking for a response. San Francisco is in the process of finding ways to make buildings safe for birds. In fact, the Supervisors are right now in the process of figuring out what rules are needed (they’ve decided in principle that it should be done).
If you think it’s a good idea, write to your Supervisor. (Right now, ours is Sean Elsbernd; his email address is Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org )
More details below (this post is replicated from SutroForest.com)
——————————————————-
Bird-killers. More dangerous than wind-farms, more insidious than cats… it’s windows. (The glass ones, not the thing produced by Microsoft.) Birds can’t see normal glass, and crash into it. Either they die, or they become easy prey.
San Francisco, like Chicago and Toronto, is trying to introduce legislation to make glass buildings safer for birds. Here’s a quote from the Planning Department website:
The newly adopted Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings [Note: this is a PDF file] explains the documented risks that structures present to birds. Over thirty years of research has proven the risk to be “biologically significant” for certain bird species. Recent studies have determined that annual bird fatalities in North America from window collisions may be as high as 1 billion birds per year or 1-5% of all birds. While the facts are staggering, the solutions are within reach. The majority of these deaths are foreseeable and avoidable. The document summarizes proven successful remedies such as window treatments, lighting design, and lighting operation. The document proposes a three-pronged approach to the problem:
creation and expansion of voluntary programs to encourage more bird-safe practices including acknowledging those who pursue certification through a proposed new program for “bird-safe building” recognition. ( page 33 of Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings )
If you’re living in San Francisco, please write to your Supervisor to support this.
SAVING CRASHED BIRDS
And meanwhile: If you find a crashed bird and it’s not dead — try to rescue it by providing a safe quiet place and some food and water. There’s a heart-warming story here on Walter Kitundu’s marvelous bird blog, wherein he saves a young Western tanager. It has some charming photographs.
Congratulations to Norman Yee, our incoming District 7 Supervisor, who will be sworn in in January 2013; and thank you, Sean Elsbernd, for representing us for so many years.
FOREST KNOLLS NEIGHBORHOOD 