But it didn’t proceed. Instead, it was put up for sale.
SF Overlook Project on a very steep slope – Google Maps image
FOR SALE AT $14 MILLION
In May 2015 SocketSite reported that the site was for sale, with the plans for the units (but without building permits).
In January 2016 they reported that the asking price, initially $20 million, had been cut to $15 million.
And in November 2016, they said the price had been cut to $14 million.
Hmm. According to a November 2016 mailing I received from realtor John Kirkpatrick, homes in the Forest Knolls neighborhood sold for an average of $1.195 million. Forest Knolls homes have 2 or 3 bedrooms and 1 or 2 bathrooms, but the back half of the garage typically offers customizable space. You can put in another 2 rooms and bathroom down there if you want. They’re standalone homes with no shared walls and most of them have a yard. That’s the competition to this project.
Let’s say these 29 luxury homes are priced at about $1.5 million, because they’ll have the latest fit and finish. Other benefits, like a 2-car garage and views are not unique to the development.
That would be a gross take of $43.5 mn, roughly 3 times the asking cost of the land and plans. Is it worth it? I don’t know.
ACCESS IS STILL AN ISSUE
Though there’s an agreement with the Mt Sutro Woods HOA, the project’s only access runs through the very narrow Crestmont Drive, which has houses on one side and a steep hillside on the other. Though on the map it looks like you could easily link it up to 5th Avenue, the intervening land doesn’t belong to the developer and is also very steep.
The way in to these 29 would-be homes is through the Forest Knolls neighborhood. Fears of destabilizing the mountainside where many homes are supported by concrete piers, fears of added traffic on an already narrow street, fears of potential emergency situations with very poor access, all could fuel more opposition.
Just over on the other side of the hill, someone was getting a house renovated. They were lifting the whole house to strengthen the foundations so they could build higher. On Monday night, it collapsed and slid 50 feet downhill.
According to the SF Chronicle news report, the owner had wanted to demolish the dilapidated 1400-square foot rental and build a 4200-square foot house instead. He couldn’t get Planning Commission permission for that since it would reduce rental housing stock; instead he went with a major “remodel.” Neighbors fought the plan for 6 years, saying the larger house would be out of keeping with the neighborhood. But in the end, the Planning Commission approved it 5-2.
Looks like the house is totaled and the owner (Port Commissioner Melvin Murphy) will need to demolish and rebuild after all!
The good news: No one was hurt. Although another building apparently had to be evacuated, I think it was found to be safe and everyone was let back in. When I went by to take this photograph, they were allowing traffic through on Graystone Terrace, the narrow winding road below the structure.
It did make me think, though, about building on steep hillsides, and collateral risk. Hope whoever finally builds San Francisco Overlook is a lot more careful.
Here’s a more detailed note from Dr Sam Sobol of Crestmont Preservation. In summary: The Mount Sutro Woods Owners Association (which is the relevant association for that area of the neighborhood) decided not to file an appeal.
They may take separate action, but for now, the broader neighborhood is not involved. As Dr Sobol says: “If the time comes when we again need to mobilize the larger neighborhood to take action, we will let you know. In the meantime, we want to express our profound gratitude for the support so many of you have shown over the years…”
A note of appreciation and look toward the future
The Planning Commission 7-0 Decision
Bulletin 4-12-13
A month has passed by since the Planning Commission hearing on the San Francisco Overlook project took place. I regret that I was not able to attend as I was on a long planned overseas trip when the meeting, rescheduled from February 14 to March 7, took place.
[Article from the San Francisco Chronicle, March 11, 2013
I have now had the opportunity to review the entire video of the proceedings and wish to thank all the neighbors on Crestmont Drive, Forest Knolls and the downhill apartments who turned out to support our neighborhood, and especially the two dozen who spoke against the development. Your reasoned, intelligent, articulate and impassioned arguments covered all of the relevant issues, highlighting why this project is so wrong for our community.
Unhappily, the Planning Commissioners seem committed in this era to the growth of housing in the City, particularly in the Western districts, no matter how disruptive or inappropriate to the location or oversized the project. It was evident that the decision had been made and that no amount of community resistance or outrage would reverse that decision, as confirmed by the 7-0 vote to approve the project.
Unwilling to give up without further action, I subsequently explored the option of mounting an appeal to the Board of Supervisors, arguing in part that the project shouldn’t be built without a pedestrian stairway downhill to 5th Ave, both for better access to public transit and for safety as an escape route in case of fire, landslide or other uphill emergency blocking Crestmont. This issue was raised by Commissioner Hillis during the Hearing, and he even brought up the question of eminent domain to force an easement by the downhill property owner which would allow for such a stair walkway.
However, conversations with two of Supervisor Norman Yee’s legislative aides, one of whom explored the issue with the City Attorney’s office, convinced us that such an appeal would be quixotic and have no chance of achieving the 8-3 necessary vote in the Board of Supervisors. Moreover, the unanimous vote of the Planning Commission made any hope of securing sufficient votes among the Supervisors to materially change any element of the project, on any grounds, virtually nonexistent.
We, therefore, did not mount the necessary petition drive to appeal to the Board of Supervisors, which would have required signatures of 20% of all homeowners within 300 ft. of the project’s borders. Nor did the adjacent homeowners’ association, the Mount Sutro Woods Owners Association (MSWOA), submit such an appeal within the 30 day limit.
Does this mean that the project will inexorably move forward in its present form? Not necessarily! There remain other issues which may have to be resolved by mediation or the courts, involving SF Overlook’s failure to abide by certain of the MSWOA’s restrictions and covenants. These issues are, however, within the provenance of the immediate homeowners’ association (of which the developer is a member) and do not directly involve the larger Crestmont Drive and Forest Knolls neighborhood.
If the time comes when we again need to mobilize the larger neighborhood to take action, we will let you know. In the meantime, we want to express our profound gratitude for the support so many of you have shown over the years in our attempt to deter or downsize this development, and in particular those who have helped on so many occasions to distribute flyers and posters, and especially those who spoke out so eloquently for our neighborhood’s values, safety and integrity at the March 7th hearing.
This is being posted at the request of the Crestmont Preservation Organization. They support “Alternative B” that would result in 16 single-family homes rather than 34 units, with less traffic and safety impacts.
——————————
The steep hillside above the planned development
The important PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING on the San Francisco Overlook Development will be held THURSDAY, MARCH 7 [2013]. The session starts at noon at City Hall.
This is our opportunity to let the Planning Commissioners hear our community’s opposition to this ill-conceived project which threatens to overwhelm our neighborhood with its size, density and increased traffic in a hazardous hillside location which may threaten our homes both above and below the site. The hazards of much increased traffic on a dangerously narrow and winding street and the streets of Forest Knolls, especially at night and in foggy conditions, have not been experienced by the Commissioners or planners, most of whom have not visited the site to our knowledge.
COME TO THE HEARING AND LET THE COMMISSIONERS SEE BY OUR NUMBERS AND HEAR FROM THOSE OF US WHO WISH TO SPEAK HOW STRONG OUR OPPOSITION IS!
IN ADDITION, we encourage you to write or call our new District 7 Supervisor, NORMAN YEE (copy Commissioners, see contact list below). We, as his constituents, are hoping that he will stand up for our community to preserve its special character, ensure its safety and limit the volume of traffic that would be added if the project moves forwarding its currently proposed size. APPEAL to Supervisor Yee to support a smaller development (Alternative B in the EIR with 16 single family homes) which would markedly cut down on the traffic volume and safety risks.
Posting a recent email to the Planning Commissioners from an affected Forest Knolls Neighbor:
As the owner/occupant of (a Forest Knolls residence), I am directly affected by the proposed Crestmont development which includes 34 units of medium density housing.
I request that the Planning Commission refuse to certify the Final EIR for this project.
I request that the Planning Commission DENY the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit.
I am unalterably opposed to this project because:
1) The density of this proposed Crestmont Development is totally out of scale with the neighborhood.
2) The proposed 34 unit development will degrade the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood by increasing traffic, overloading the available street parking, and increasing emergency service response time, particularly to the end of Crestmont Dr.
3) The proposed 34 Unit development lies within the Northwest Mt. Sutro Slope Protection Area. The hillside adjacent to the proposed project has already had several landslides. The proposed project is both a landslide hazard and an earthquake slide hazard. The underlying soil cannot be reinforced sufficiently to prevent the project from sliding down the hill during an earthquake, particularly if the underlying soil is infiltrated by water to any degree.
4) The zoning for the subject parcel is erroneous. The subject parcels should be rezoned to conform with the lower density zoning of the immediate neighborhood.
5) The Environmental Impact Report that has been prepared is fatally flawed because the emergency service vehicle access test that was run by the SFFD was run during the day during the week when there were few if any vehicles parked on Crestmont.
6) I submit that it is impossible for a fire engine or an ambulance to negotiate Crestmont Dr. at any reasonable speed when there are numerous vehicles parked on both sides of the street. Any victims in need of emergency services at the end of Crestmont Dr. will be dead before emergency service vehicles can reach them.
7) I contend that Crestmont is too narrow to allow a fire truck or other emergency vehicle to pass even one car travelling in the opposite direction.
8) I submit that elimination of street parking on either side of the street would exacerbate the existing parking shortage.
9) I request that the emergency service vehicle access test be redone on a Sunday evening at 10 PM when there are numerous vehicles parked on Crestmont.
I contend that the inaccessibility of the Crestmont Development site is good cause to down zone the subject parcels to conform with the low density zoning of the immediate neighborhood thereby restricting occupancy to a maximum of 10-14 units.
As the developer paid less than $100,000 per lot, he will still be able to make millions of dollars even if he only constructs ten single family homes instead of the 34 units he is proposing.
SUPERVISOR NORMAN YEE
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
(415) 554-6516 – voice
(415) 554-6546 – fax
Norman.Yee@sfgov.org
Contact list for Planning Commissioners
RODNEY FONG
Commission President
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103-2414
(415) 202-0436
planning@rodneyfong.com
CINDY WU
Commission Vice-President
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103-2414
cwu.planning@gmail.com
MICHAEL J. ANTONINI
Commissioner
2827 Franklin Street
San Francisco, CA 94123-3107
PH: (415) 558-6615 ext.2
FX: (415) 558-6409
wordweaver21@aol.com
GWYNETH BORDEN
Commissioner
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
PH: (415) 367-3801
plangsf@gmail.com
RICH HILLIS
Commissioner
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103-2414
richhillissf@yahoo.com
KATHRIN MOORE
Commissioner
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suit 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
PH: (415) 558-6615 ext.5
mooreurban@aol.com
HISASHI SUGAYA
Commissioner
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103-2414
PH: (415) 558-6615 ext.7
FX: (415) 558-6409
hs.commish@yahoo.com
REMINDER: Please display the poster in your window and urge your neighbors to also display the poster! If you need a poster, please email info@crestmontpreservation.org.
Too large!!! Not safe!!! Help Stop or Downscale!!!
Working to Stop or Downscale S.F. Overlook Development
Update February 8, 2013
CRITICAL PHASE!!! NEIGHBORS UNITE!!!
The Planning Commission Hearing is scheduled for Thursday, March 7 and it’s time to mobilize! Any further development on this hillside, at the end of the City’s longest cul-de-sac, is fraught with risk and is wrong for our neighborhood. But if construction proves to be inevitable, instead of the proposed 34 unit development, our goal is to get this project downscaled to a smaller number of single family homes as proposed in Alternative B in the EIR (p. 274).
Please mark your calendars and plan to attend two important neighborhood meetings as well as the critical Planning Commission hearing.
Wednesday, February 13 at 7 PM – S.F. Overlook Developer Forum. Location: Midtown Terrace Community Room, 280 Olympia Way (at Clarendon Ave.) Hear the developer’s proposals and express your concerns.
Tuesday, February 19, 7-9 PM – All Forest Knolls and Crestmont neighbors are invited to a get-together to discuss issues and strategy for the Planning Commission Hearing. Hosted by Reed Minuth and Megin Scully, 485 Crestmont Drive. RSVP Jeffrey Eade, eadej@me.com, 415-606-4414.
Thursday, March 7, 12 Noon – Planning Commission Hearing, Room 400, City Hall. Everyone opposed to this project is urged to attend the hearing! Those who wish to speak will have 3 minutes to present their arguments against this massive 34 unit development which threatens our neighborhood. ATTENDANCE IS IMPORTANT! Additional information and flyer posted on http://crestmontpreservation.org
REMINDER: Please display the poster in your window and urge your neighbors to also display the poster! If you need a poster, please email info@crestmontpreservation.org.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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?
Readers of this blog will know that the much-opposed Crestmont Development (34 units at the end of a narrow road on a steep slope) is back with a new name, The San Francisco Overlook. It’s still 34 units, it’s still at the end of a narrow road, and the hill remains pretty steep. The Environmental Impact Report is in its final phase, and comments will soon be due. The neighborhood coalition is geared up for the battle (pardon the pun) with t-shirts, sweatshirts and bags.
This update was sent by the Crestmont-Mt.Sutro-Forest Knolls Neighborhood Preservation Coalition. (It’s republished with permission and added emphasis):
SF OVERLOOK Development Threatens Our Neighborhood!
EIR in Final Phase!
Preparing for Upcoming Publication of 2nd Draft of EIRUpdate, 6-25-11
As summer has begun, we are awaiting the publication of the 2nd draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pertaining to the SF Overlook 34-unit condominium project at the end of Crestmont Drive. Once it has been published, we will have 30 days to express our concerns and objections regarding this oversized development which will add far too much traffic, parking congestion and density to our neighborhood.
We will notify all of our Mt.Sutro Woods and Forest Knolls neighbors when the time comes to deluge the Planning Department with letters. It will also be important that we attend and speak at the public hearing which will be held by the Planning Commission.
With a united effort on the part of the community, we believe we can stop this project in its present form. If something must be built on this treacherous hillside, we are fighting for a much scaled-back development of far fewer single family homes which would address the critical issues of safety, congestion and density at the end of this fragile cul-de-sac, and be more in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
As a visible reflection of our resolve, we have adapted the now familiar red and yellow “STOP SF OVERLOOK DEVELOPMENT” poster to a line of t-shirts and sweatshirts. We have been wearing them on our walks around the neighborhood and several neighbors have expressed the wish to obtain these distinctive sportswear items for themselves and their family members, to further spread the message of their objection to the proposed development.
We hope to see many neighbors at the hearing wearing these t-shirts and sweatshirts as they might send a powerful message of neighborhood sentiment and cohesiveness!
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.
Someone sent me the notice below with a request to post it here. The Crestmont project (which I wrote about here, almost exactly a year ago) seems to have reappeared with a new name, and a fast timeline. There are meetings in early May.
![Crestmont%20Poster-400w[1]](https://forestknolls.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/crestmont20poster-400w1.jpg)
FOREST KNOLLS NEIGHBORHOOD 