November 2004 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

"Freeway in the Park?" Story and SFGTV
by Jym Dyer 26 Nov '04

26 Nov '04

=v= Good little story about the growing coalition of people opposed to widening MLK for the concourse garage, by Savannah Blackwell in the _Guardian_: http://www.sfbg.com/39/08/news_ggpark.html =v= "SFGTV" provides a RealMedia stream of the Finance & Audits Committee meeting, for those of us who missed being there. Go to: http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfgtv_index.asp?id=11516#Finance_Audits Click on "Wednesday November 24, 2004" and then click on agenda item #9. Some really really great stuff in the public comments. <_Jym_>

1 0

MLK Road-Widening in the SFBC Biker Bulletin!
by Jym Dyer 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

=v= Excellent news! The SFBC sent the update and action items below to the sfbike list and to its entire membership. While the SFBC has for years not opted to support our efforts against the garage, they are against the widening of MLK. <_Jym_> [From SFBC Biker Bulletin - November 22, 2004] UPDATE on GG PARK ROAD WIDENING - w/ ACTION ITEMS The plan to widen Martin Luther King Dr. in Golden Gate Park to 4 lanes (without bike lanes), opposed by the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, the Bay Guardian, Supervisor-elect Ross Mirkarimi, the Alliance for Golden Gate Park and the SFBC, is scheduled to be approved at the Recreation and Park Commission Meeting to be held Monday, November 29th. However, the Board of Supervisors have taken a keen interest in this issue, and we need to encourage them to translate this into action that will protect our Park. SFBC members have generated a record 600 individual faxes and letters to the Recreation and Park Commission since last week, and a successful protest was held on Saturday at the 9th Avenue entrance to the Park. But we need to do more to ensure that this plan gets reconsidered before it's too late. Here are some NEW ACTIONS you can take to DEFEND OUR PARK: ---> ATTEND SPUR's brown bag lunch tomorrow, Tuesday Nov. 23rd, 312 Sutter 5th Floor where Mike Ellzey, Director of the Concourse Authority and others will undoubtedly be touting the multi-modal benefits of their activities in the Park. Cost: $5 for non-SPUR members ---> ATTEND the Board of Supervisors' Special Hearing at the Finance and Audits Committee this Wednesday, Nov. 24th at 1pm in Room 263. Ask Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, and Peskin to halt the plans to widen MLK Dr, remove the illegal second garage entrance in the Park, and approve a circulation plan for the Concourse that prohibits cross-park vehicle traffic. ---> WRITE A BRIEF E-MAIL, send a letter, or call your district Supervisor and ask them to halt the plans to widen MLK Dr, remove the illegal second garage entrance in the Park, and approve a circulation plan for the Concourse that prohibits cross-park vehicle traffic. Click on http://www.sfbike.org/leaders for contact info for your Supervisor. ---> WRITE A LETTER TO THE CHRONICLE in response to Ken Garcia's misleading and misinformed op-ed today. Read his piece here: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/22/EDGD99EOUP1.DTL Now read the real story here, in this Beyond Chron feature: http://beyondchron.org/default.asp?sdetail=1135 You're now prepped to write letters! Chronicle guidelines here: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#open

2 1

Re: [Transpo] your snail mail address and more ...
by Jym Dyer 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

> have you, or anyone else, figured out how to e-mail or fax > the Recreation and Park Commission? =v= I poked around sfgov.org and found this: http://www.sfgov.org/site/recpark_page.asp?id=2192 | Commission Liaison | Margaret McArthur | Phone: (415) 831-2750 | Fax: (415) 221-8034 No email is mentioned, though. <_Jym_>

1 0

your snail mail address and more ...
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

Hi Jym, What's your address so that I can mail you the photograph? Also, have you, or anyone else, figured out how to e-mail or fax the Recreation and Park Commission? BTW, I was not able to make it to the hearing today, but Kathy told me it was the best ever, that people were coming out of the woodwork to oppose the expansion of MLK. Thanks Sue Vaughan On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:48:47 -0800 (PST) Jym Dyer <jym(a)econet.org> writes: > =v= Brand spankin' new on the front page: > > http://beyondchron.org/default.asp?sdetail=1153 > > This is in response to the aforementioned Ken Garcia column and > also the editorial in yesterday's _Examiner_ (when their website > wasn't working): > > http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/112204op_editorial2 > > <_Jym_> > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Two Letters in _Chron_ Today (MLK Widening)
by Jym Dyer 24 Nov '04

24 Nov '04

=v= Two anti-MLK-widening letters in the _Chron_ today, in response to Ken Garcia's stupid column. <_Jym_> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/24/EDG029VV0H1.DTL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Wednesday, 24-Nov-2004 | San Francisco Chronicle | Page B-8 Protests seek to save park for true park uses Editor -- As a neighbor to Golden Gate Park and one of more than 600 San Franciscans who wrote to protest the de Young's latest proposal to widen Martin Luther King Boulevard in order to accommodate more traffic, I take issue with Ken Garcia's column ("In S.F., change is never a walk in the park," Nov. 22). Many groups are fighting this development beyond the Trees Not Cars organization. The developers are disregarding the needs of the public in the name of their enterprise. This is a park, one of our last public spaces -- a place we very much need to defend. It seems that a compromise can be found, taking into consideration the needs of park-goers and neighbors along with the desires of the de Young. My greatest hope is that the de Young and its benefactors can see that what is being requested is not at all unreasonable -- simply asking that the needs of our public not be sacrificed, and that the park remain what it was designed for: a space for quiet and safe recreation, which can more than properly coexist with the museum. MATTHEW IRIBARNE San Francisco Editor -- In his attacks on citizen opposition to widening roads in Golden Gate Park, Ken Garcia omits that in 1998 voters approved Proposition J to build an underground garage and to make the park more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly by reducing the impact of automobiles in the park. Voters thought they were voting for public policies defending the "graceful, forested jewel" of Golden Gate Park, not big roads in the park. But the Concourse Authority has brazenly proposed to widen MLK Drive to make it easier for motorists to access the garage. This road-building proposal is not surprising. Since groundbreaking, both the de Young Museum and Concourse Authority made John F. Kennedy Drive a hazard to bicyclists. They seem uninterested in removing surface parking in the park, and they are ignoring the voter mandate for a true pedestrian oasis in the Concourse. Bike lanes? These guys could not care less. JASON HENDERSON San Francisco [Deletia]

1 0

Katherine Roberts Guest Editorial in _Beyond_Chron_
by Jym Dyer 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

=v= Brand spankin' new on the front page: http://beyondchron.org/default.asp?sdetail=1153 This is in response to the aforementioned Ken Garcia column and also the editorial in yesterday's _Examiner_ (when their website wasn't working): http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/112204op_editorial2 <_Jym_>

1 0

Re: [Transpo] [susan_e_vaughan@yahoo.com: Rescheduled hearings to attend regarding Proposition J and "surface improvements" planned by the GGPCA]
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

COrrection to Number 4 below: Muni representatives didn't testify against the road-widening at the 9th Avenue entrance -- they testified that the road-widening and all other options being considered would make access for Muni buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists worse. We should also be encouraging the Sunshine Task Force to look into possible violations of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act. Sue On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:33:01 -0800 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > ----- Forwarded message from susan vaughan > <susan_e_vaughan(a)yahoo.com> ----- > > Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:16:25 -0800 (PST) > From: susan vaughan <susan_e_vaughan(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: Rescheduled hearings to attend regarding Proposition J and > "surface improvements" planned by the GGPCA > To: wendy neumann <misspeasy(a)aol.com> > > Hello Everyone, > > Unfortunately, the Golden Gate Park Concourse > Authority approved Option 1 -- the widening of the > entrance to GGP at 9th Avenue from two lanes to four > lanes -- by a six to one vote. It passed: > > 1)Despite the fact that there has been very little > public notice; and, > > 2) Despite the fact that on the face of it, such a > plan would seem to violate Proposition J, passed in > 1998, which pledges to reduce the impact of the > automobile and enhance safety for pedestrians; and, > > 2) Despite the fact that the Golden Gate Park Master > Plan explicitly prohibits further road widenings; and, > > 4) Despite the fact that a representative of Muni > testified against the plan, saying that all of the > options being considered would impair Muni access; > and, > > 5) Despite the fact that commissioners voting on the > plan received copies of vital documents regarding the > plan DURING the meeting. They were told by Exec. > Director Michael Ellzey that there was no time to read > them; and, > > 6) Despite the fact that these documents were not > available for the public to review prior to the > meeting (thus there may have been Sunshine Ordinance > and Brown Act violations -- MAYBE, not sure). > > Please attend the following two hearings: > > 1) Finance and Audits Committee hearing at 1 p.m., > Room 263, Wednesday, November 24; and, > > 2) Recreation and Park Commission hearing, 2:30 p.m., > Room 416, Monday, November 29 (postponed from original > Nov. 18 date). > > Also, please contact the supervisors and ask them to > hold a special hearing regarding the park and access > routes (or AN access route) to the garage that are in > compliance with Proposition J and acceptable to people > who live both North and South of the park. Also ask > them to halt construction until such a plan is arrived > at. > > "michela alioto-pier" <michela.alioto-pier(a)sfgov.org>, > "tom ammiano" <tom.ammiano(a)sfgov.org>, "chris daly" > <chris.daly(a)sfgov.org>, "bevan dufty" > <bevan.dufty(a)sfgov.org>, "Matt Gonzalez" > <matt.gonzalez(a)sfgov.org>, "fiona ma" > <fiona.ma(a)sfgov.org>, "sophie maxwell" > <sophie.maxwell(a)sfgov.org>, "jake mcgoldrick" > <jake.mcgoldrick(a)sfgov.org>, "aaron peskin" > <aaron.peskin(a)sfgov.org>, "gerardo sandoval" > <gerardo.sandoval(a)sfgov.org> > > Thanks for your efforts. > > Sue Vaughan > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://www.dolorespark.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Re: [Transpo] [susan_e_vaughan@yahoo.com: Rescheduled hearings to attend regarding Proposition J and "surface improvements" planned by the GGPCA]
by Jym Dyer 18 Nov '04

18 Nov '04

> Recreation and Park Commission hearing, 2:30 p.m., > Room 416, Monday, November 29 (postponed from > orginal Nov. 18 date). =v= Here's the agenda for today's meeting: http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/recpark/meetings/Recreation_and_Park_Co… While Item 9 has indeed been moved to November 29th, Item 8 is still on today's agenda: #8 - GOLDEN GATE PARK CONCOURSE SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS Discussion and possible action to approve a construction contract to Swinerton Builders, Inc. to undertake work described in DPW 0485J for the Surface Improvements Project in the Concourse area of Golden Gate Park in the amount of $6 million. (ACTION ITEM) =v= If anyone can make it there (and rumor has it that Swinerton will argue for more money), check it out. <_Jym_>

1 0

[susan_e_vaughan@yahoo.com: Rescheduled hearings to attend regarding Proposition J and "surface improvements" planned by the GGPCA]
by John-Marc Chandonia 18 Nov '04

18 Nov '04

----- Forwarded message from susan vaughan <susan_e_vaughan(a)yahoo.com> ----- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:16:25 -0800 (PST) From: susan vaughan <susan_e_vaughan(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Rescheduled hearings to attend regarding Proposition J and "surface improvements" planned by the GGPCA To: wendy neumann <misspeasy(a)aol.com> Hello Everyone, Unfortunately, the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority approved Option 1 -- the widening of the entrance to GGP at 9th Avenue from two lanes to four lanes -- by a six to one vote. It passed: 1)Despite the fact that there has been very little public notice; and, 2) Despite the fact that on the face of it, such a plan would seem to violate Proposition J, passed in 1998, which pledges to reduce the impact of the automobile and enhance safety for pedestrians; and, 2) Despite the fact that the Golden Gate Park Master Plan explicitly prohibits further road widenings; and, 4) Despite the fact that a representative of Muni testified against the plan, saying that all of the options being considered would impair Muni access; and, 5) Despite the fact that commissioners voting on the plan received copies of vital documents regarding the plan DURING the meeting. They were told by Exec. Director Michael Ellzey that there was no time to read them; and, 6) Despite the fact that these documents were not available for the public to review prior to the meeting (thus there may have been Sunshine Ordinance and Brown Act violations -- MAYBE, not sure). Please attend the following two hearings: 1) Finance and Audits Committee hearing at 1 p.m., Room 263, Wednesday, November 24; and, 2) Recreation and Park Commission hearing, 2:30 p.m., Room 416, Monday, November 29 (postponed from original Nov. 18 date). Also, please contact the supervisors and ask them to hold a special hearing regarding the park and access routes (or AN access route) to the garage that are in compliance with Proposition J and acceptable to people who live both North and South of the park. Also ask them to halt construction until such a plan is arrived at. "michela alioto-pier" <michela.alioto-pier(a)sfgov.org>, "tom ammiano" <tom.ammiano(a)sfgov.org>, "chris daly" <chris.daly(a)sfgov.org>, "bevan dufty" <bevan.dufty(a)sfgov.org>, "Matt Gonzalez" <matt.gonzalez(a)sfgov.org>, "fiona ma" <fiona.ma(a)sfgov.org>, "sophie maxwell" <sophie.maxwell(a)sfgov.org>, "jake mcgoldrick" <jake.mcgoldrick(a)sfgov.org>, "aaron peskin" <aaron.peskin(a)sfgov.org>, "gerardo sandoval" <gerardo.sandoval(a)sfgov.org> Thanks for your efforts. Sue Vaughan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Concourse & Garage Meetings TODAY / Not on Agenda Wednesday
by Jym Dyer 16 Nov '04

16 Nov '04

[Sorry for the lateness of this; my mailserver was offline.] =v= A reminder and updates about these important meetings. Notice how fast everything's happening; that's an attempt to thwart public participation. Plus, PLEASE READ to see what you can do if you can't go to these meetings. (1) GGP Concourse Authority Special Meeting City Hall, Room 400 Today, 16-Nov, 12:30pm http://sfgov.org/site/recpark_page.asp?id=28278 The Authority is slated to approve a dedicated acess route to the garage. Three options are on the table, none of which in conformance with Prop J. They are expected to approve one of them. There's time for public comment for "items ... that do not appear on this agenda" scheduled *after* this vote. That's how much they care. (This meeting was scheduled to follow a Planning Department determination about whether these major changes to the project require a new environmental impact report (EIR). Any reasonable observer can see that it does, but the Authority seems confident that Planning will say otherwise. However, Planning did not hold their Thursday meeting because it was Veterans' Day. But the Authority is rushing to vote on this item anyway.) (2) Board of Supervisors Meeting City Hall, Legislative Chamber, Second Floor Today, 16-Nov, Public Comment starts at 4:30pm http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/a111604.htm Call on the Supes to request that the Recreation & Parks Dept. *not* approve the entrance or concourse surface "improvements" on Thursday. This is our only chance to comment. CONTACT YOUR SUPERVISOR RIGHT AWAY if you can't get to this meeting, or even if you can. Contact info is here: http://sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp Do this most especially if your Supervisor is McGoldrick, Peskin, or Sandoval. (3) Board of Supervisors Finance and Audits Committee City Hall, Room 263 Wednesday, 17-Nov, 1:00pm http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=7255 We said this was the most important meeting of all, and called on people to attend it and tell the Committee to stop this project. Unfortunately, a Supervisor's aide forgot to put it on the agenda. It's on next week's agenda (24-Nov), but this stuff is being fast-tracked and ths Committee really ought to stop it. Daly, Peskin, Ammiano are the Supervisors on this Committee. CONTACT THEM to let them know they should not approve the concourse surface "improvement" project. (4) Recreation & Park Commission Meeting City Hall, Room 416 Thursday, 18-Nov, 2:00pm http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/recpark/meetings/Recreation_and_Park_Co… This Commission is expected to rubberstamp the project. Public comment is again on the agenda after the vote, and again on "items ... that do not appear on the agenda." Again, that's how much they care. =v= Some points you might want to bring up: o Prop J was devised and sold to voters as an integrated compromise. None of the dedicated access routes fit into that compromise. Every option upsets somebody, which proves that this can't be piecemealed. No option should be approved. o The fact that they avoided Prop J and instead came up with options that pit neighborhoods against each other shows bad faith. The fact that they're fast-tracking this shows bad faith. Bad faith efforts should not be approved. o The fact that they're going ahead without a determination from Planning about the EIR shows that they're rushing this too much. Ditto for the aide failing to put it on the agenda in a timely manner. <_Jym_>

1 0