- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

TWG agenda for 7-26
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 21 Jul '05

21 Jul '05

Per earlier e-mail, Dave Snyder wants to postpone the SPUR document until the August meeting. That's ok with me, though I migh not be at that meeting. So at next week's meeting, let's talk about having another event. Anything else? Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 11:39:07PM +0000, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > We have a TWG meeting next Tuesday. John Marc has abandoned us temporarily and flown the coop to the far side of the Big Puddle. I'll bring back some pictures... there is some really fascinating bike lane + traffic calming technology in use here (a stark contrast to the 19th century plumbing technology). JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] September 20 event -- possible changes
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 21 Jul '05

21 Jul '05

Hello Again Everyone, We have a TWG meeting next Tuesday. John Marc has abandoned us temporarily and flown the coop to the far side of the Big Puddle. We could have on the agenda a document from SPUR re. transportation. A copy of it got forwarded to me, but I don't know if everyone else got it. It's long. What else do we need to discuss? Perhaps Option 2B, re. concourse resolution if this is not satisfactorily dealt with tonight at the GM. Perhaps organizing for an event at the Bazaar Cafe in the Richmond District, if Global Exchange gets space at New College for the September 20 appearance of Richard Heinberg (the owner of the Bazaar will be expecting me to do something). Also, I don't have a key to get into the GP office so I will have to arrange to get someone else to open it. Sue -- "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> wrote: Hello Everyone, June Brashares is working to get space at New COllege for the September 20 appearance of Richard Heinberg. That way Global Exchange will pay Richard and shoulder most of the work of organizing the event. And that way Richard's message will get out to more people. I still want to tape it for public access TV -- I think I would be able to do that. If she can get that space (and Richard agrees to the change in venue), then I still feel that I owe the owners of the Bazaar Cafe and want to arrange for an alternative event at their space on a different night. We could perhaps do a free screening of The End of Suburbia. Pat Villano has offered the use of his DVD player, another person who lives nearby says we can take her TV into the cafe. If we did this, we would actually be able to fundraise for the Green Party (we would probably want to pause part way through the screening so that people could take breaks, buy drinks, etc.). In the event we cannot get ahold of a copy of the DVD, June told me that her boyfriend has a copy. Hey, if we did this, we could invite Dave Room over for a panel discussion and to sell books and DVDs. The event would probably have to end at 9 p.m., 9:15 at the latest, however (zoning laws). Sue _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

2 1

GG Park issues on the Bike Advisory Cte
by Susan King 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:15 p.m. 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place (Polk Street), Room 408 AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. New Committee Member Recognition 3. Announcements & Acknowledgments 4. Approve Minutes - June 16 BAC Meeting 5. Public Comment: (Discussion Item) The public may address the Committee on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee. This should not relate to any item on this agenda since the Committee will take public comment after it discusses and/or before voting on each agenda item. The Committee requests that each person limit him/herself to three minutes. 6. Chairman's Report (Information) 7. Committee Member Reports (Information) 8. Reports on the Bike Plan a. DPT Report - See DPT Bicycle Program Report to the BAC for June 2005 ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=3170 - bottom of page). Items will be open for public comment. (Information) b. SFBC Report (Information/Requested Action in Future Meeting) 9. Task Force Reports a. Bike Theft & Security - No Update b. Colored Bike Lanes - Andy Thornley, SF Bicycle Coalition c. BART/MUNI Ventilation Grate Replacement - Ended, as of July 21 10. New Business (Items will be open individually for public comment) Golden Gate Park Concourse Circulation Plan - Presentation by the Concourse Authority on the recommended design option., by Susan King Action: Resolution Resolution - GG Park Concourse Circulation Plan 2B WHEREAS Proposition J (the Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998) was enacted by the voters of San Francisco to: (1) Create a pedestrian oasis in the Music Concourse Area of Golden Gate Park; and (2) Take steps to reduce the impact of automobiles in the Park; and WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Concourse project is nearing its first-phase completion, and the circulation plan for the Music Concourse area, defining whether and how vehicle traffic will move through and around the Concourse will be decided and the Concourse re-opened to the public by mid-October of this year; and WHEREAS the Concourse Authority's recommended design (approved on 6/14/05) is not sufficiently consistent with the mandate of Proposition J to create a pedestrian oasis in the Music Concourse Area of Golden Gate Park and take steps to reduce the impact of automobiles in the Park; THEREFORE we recommend that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors modify the Concourse Authority's preferred option for design for Surface Vehicular Circulation in the Music Concourse area of Golden Gate Park, called Option 2A, in order to more fully meet the mandates of Proposition J, so: 1) Add bollards at the north entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which would be activated (raised) all hours and allow automatic access only to Muni buses and emergency and park vehicles, and would restrict general thru-traffic. 2) Add bollards at the south entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which would be activated (raised) only during the museums' non-operating hours (estimated before 9:30am and after 5:30pm and on days the museums are closed). This will allow for passenger drop-off and disabled access during the museums' operating hours, as well as access for Muni buses and emergency vehicles at all hours. Resolved that the San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee urges the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to approve Golden Gate Park Concourse Circulation Plan, Option 2A, with the modifications as identified in sub-items 1) & 2), above. 11. Adjournment DISABILITY ACCESS: Room 408 of City Hall is wheelchair accessible. The closest accessible BART Station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: #47 Van Ness, and the #71 Haight/Noriega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the Metro stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible services, call 923-6142. There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to Davies Hall and the War Memorial Complex. Large print copies of the agenda, sign language interpreters, or assistive listening systems can be made available by contacting the DPT staff liaison, Lorraine R. Fuqua, at 415-554-9808.. In order to assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity, or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. The Sunshine Ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review. For information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact Donna Hall; by mail to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco CA 94102 by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-7854 or by email at Donna.Hall(a)sfgov.org Citizens may obtain a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance by contacting Ms. Hall or by printing Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code on the Internet, at http://www.sfgov.org/sunshine.htm Persons from the public may inspect documents referred to on the agenda by contacting our staff liaison, Frank Markowitz at 252-4696. LOBBYIST ORDINANCE Individuals and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action may be required by the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Section 2.100, to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please contact the Ethics Commission at 30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3900, San Francisco, CA 94102, telephone 415-581-2300, fax 415-581-2317, or visit their Web site at www.sfgov.org/ethics/.

2 1

Re: [Transpo] GG Park issues on the Bike Advisory Cte
by Jym Dyer 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

=v= I can't help but notice a contradiction here: > WHEREAS the Concourse Authority's recommended design (approved > on 6/14/05) is not sufficiently consistent with the mandate > of Proposition J to create a pedestrian oasis in the Music > Concourse Area of Golden Gate Park and take steps to reduce > the impact of automobiles in the Park; and here: > This will allow for passenger drop-off and disabled access > during the museums' operating hours, as well as access for > Muni buses and emergency vehicles at all hours. Passenger drop-off -- an impact of automobiles in the park and specifically in the pedestrian oasis -- is not at all consistent with the mandate of Prop J. =v= And yes, I've already heard the arguments that this is the best we can expect due to the powers that be including a corrupt judge. My issue is that the above is not the truth. Prop J says no entrance inside the park. The above wording legitimizes an entrance inside the park. =v= I also take issue with lumping passenger drop-off in amongst access for the disabled, public transit, and emergency vehicles, which is misleading. <_Jym_>

1 0

September 20 event -- possible changes
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

Hello Everyone, June Brashares is working to get space at New COllege for the September 20 appearance of Richard Heinberg. That way Global Exchange will pay Richard and shoulder most of the work of organizing the event. And that way Richard's message will get out to more people. I still want to tape it for public access TV -- I think I would be able to do that. If she can get that space (and Richard agrees to the change in venue), then I still feel that I owe the owners of the Bazaar Cafe and want to arrange for an alternative event at their space on a different night. We could perhaps do a free screening of The End of Suburbia. Pat Villano has offered the use of his DVD player, another person who lives nearby says we can take her TV into the cafe. If we did this, we would actually be able to fundraise for the Green Party (we would probably want to pause part way through the screening so that people could take breaks, buy drinks, etc.). In the event we cannot get ahold of a copy of the DVD, June told me that her boyfriend has a copy. Hey, if we did this, we could invite Dave Room over for a panel discussion and to sell books and DVDs. The event would probably have to end at 9 p.m., 9:15 at the latest, however (zoning laws). Sue

1 0

Re: [Transpo] GG Park issues on the Bike Advisory Cte
by funking＠mindspring.com 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

That must be a typo, we are urging for option 2B. thanks for catching the typo sk -----Original Message----- From: "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> Sent: Jul 19, 2005 5:10 PM To: funking(a)mindspring.com Cc: transpo(a)sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [Transpo] GG Park issues on the Bike Advisory Cte Susan, Again, which do you want the supervisors to endorse? Option 2A or Option 2B? I thought you were encouraging them to endorse Option 2B, but your resolve at the end of the resolution urges the supervisors to endorse Option 2A -- albeit with modifications. Perhaps in activist circles you are talking about 2A and 2B, but to the public you are just saying 2A with modifications (in which case the "a" is not necessary). Sue -- Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> wrote: BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:15 p.m. 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place (Polk Street), Room 408 AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. New Committee Member Recognition 3. Announcements & Acknowledgments 4. Approve Minutes - June 16 BAC Meeting 5. Public Comment: (Discussion Item) The public may address the Committee on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee. This should not relate to any item on this agenda since the Committee will take public comment after it discusses and/or before voting on each agenda item. The Committee requests that each person limit him/herself to three minutes. 6. Chairman's Report (Information) 7. Committee Member Reports (Information) 8. Reports on the Bike Plan a. DPT Report - See DPT Bicycle Program Report to the BAC for June 2005 ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=3170 - bottom of page). Items will be open for public comment. (Information) b. SFBC Report (Information/Requested Action in Future Meeting) 9. Task Force Reports a. Bike Theft & Security - No Update b. Colored Bike Lanes - Andy Thornley, SF Bicycle Coalition c. BART/MUNI Ventilation Grate Replacement - Ended, as of July 21 10. New Business (Items will be open individually for public comment) Golden Gate Park Concourse Circulation Plan - Presentation by the Concourse Authority on the recommended design option., by Susan King Action: Resolution Resolution - GG Park Concourse Circulation Plan 2B WHEREAS Proposition J (the Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998) was enacted by the voters of San Francisco to: (1) Create a pedestrian oasis in the Music Concourse Area of Golden Gate Park; and (2) Take steps to reduce the impact of automobiles in the Park; and WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Concourse project is nearing its first-phase completion, and the circulation plan for the Music Concourse area, defining whether and how vehicle traffic will move through and around the Concourse will be decided and the Concourse re-opened to the public by mid-October of this year; and WHEREAS the Concourse Authority's recommended design (approved on 6/14/05) is not sufficiently consistent with the mandate of Proposition J to create a pedestrian oasis in the Music Concourse Area of Golden Gate Park and take steps to reduce the impact of automobiles in the Park; THEREFORE we recommend that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors modify the Concourse Authority's preferred option for design for Surface Vehicular Circulation in the Music Concourse area of Golden Gate Park, called Option 2A, in order to more fully meet the mandates of Proposition J, so: 1) Add bollards at the north entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which would be activated (raised) all hours and allow automatic access only to Muni buses and emergency and park vehicles, and would restrict general thru-traffic. 2) Add bollards at the south entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which would be activated (raised) only during the museums' non-operating hours (estimated before 9:30am and after 5:30pm and on days the museums are closed). This will allow for passenger drop-off and disabled access during the museums' operating hours, as well as access for Muni buses and emergency vehicles at all hours. Resolved that the San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee urges the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to approve Golden Gate Park Concourse Circulation Plan, Option 2A, with the modifications as identified in sub-items 1) & 2), above. 11. Adjournment DISABILITY ACCESS: Room 408 of City Hall is wheelchair accessible. The closest accessible BART Station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: #47 Van Ness, and the #71 Haight/Noriega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the Metro stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible services, call 923-6142. There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to Davies Hall and the War Memorial Complex. Large print copies of the agenda, sign language interpreters, or assistive listening systems can be made available by contacting the DPT staff liaison, Lorraine R. Fuqua, at 415-554-9808.. In order to assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity, or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. The Sunshine Ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review. For information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact Donna Hall; by mail to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco CA 94102 by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-7854 or by email at Donna.Hall(a)sfgov.org Citizens may obtain a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance by contacting Ms. Hall or by printing Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code on the Internet, at http://www.sfgov.org/sunshine.htm Persons from the public may inspect documents referred to on the agenda by contacting our staff liaison, Frank Markowitz at 252-4696. LOBBYIST ORDINANCE Individuals and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action may be required by the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Section 2.100, to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please contact the Ethics Commission at 30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3900, San Francisco, CA 94102, telephone 415-581-2300, fax 415-581-2317, or visit their Web site at www.sfgov.org/ethics/. _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] GG Park issues on the Bike Advisory Cte
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

Susan, Again, which do you want the supervisors to endorse? Option 2A or Option 2B? I thought you were encouraging them to endorse Option 2B, but your resolve at the end of the resolution urges the supervisors to endorse Option 2A -- albeit with modifications. Perhaps in activist circles you are talking about 2A and 2B, but to the public you are just saying 2A with modifications (in which case the "a" is not necessary). Sue -- Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> wrote: BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:15 p.m. 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place (Polk Street), Room 408 AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. New Committee Member Recognition 3. Announcements & Acknowledgments 4. Approve Minutes - June 16 BAC Meeting 5. Public Comment: (Discussion Item) The public may address the Committee on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee. This should not relate to any item on this agenda since the Committee will take public comment after it discusses and/or before voting on each agenda item. The Committee requests that each person limit him/herself to three minutes. 6. Chairman's Report (Information) 7. Committee Member Reports (Information) 8. Reports on the Bike Plan a. DPT Report - See DPT Bicycle Program Report to the BAC for June 2005 ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=3170 - bottom of page). Items will be open for public comment. (Information) b. SFBC Report (Information/Requested Action in Future Meeting) 9. Task Force Reports a. Bike Theft & Security - No Update b. Colored Bike Lanes - Andy Thornley, SF Bicycle Coalition c. BART/MUNI Ventilation Grate Replacement - Ended, as of July 21 10. New Business (Items will be open individually for public comment) Golden Gate Park Concourse Circulation Plan - Presentation by the Concourse Authority on the recommended design option., by Susan King Action: Resolution Resolution - GG Park Concourse Circulation Plan 2B WHEREAS Proposition J (the Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998) was enacted by the voters of San Francisco to: (1) Create a pedestrian oasis in the Music Concourse Area of Golden Gate Park; and (2) Take steps to reduce the impact of automobiles in the Park; and WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Concourse project is nearing its first-phase completion, and the circulation plan for the Music Concourse area, defining whether and how vehicle traffic will move through and around the Concourse will be decided and the Concourse re-opened to the public by mid-October of this year; and WHEREAS the Concourse Authority's recommended design (approved on 6/14/05) is not sufficiently consistent with the mandate of Proposition J to create a pedestrian oasis in the Music Concourse Area of Golden Gate Park and take steps to reduce the impact of automobiles in the Park; THEREFORE we recommend that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors modify the Concourse Authority's preferred option for design for Surface Vehicular Circulation in the Music Concourse area of Golden Gate Park, called Option 2A, in order to more fully meet the mandates of Proposition J, so: 1) Add bollards at the north entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which would be activated (raised) all hours and allow automatic access only to Muni buses and emergency and park vehicles, and would restrict general thru-traffic. 2) Add bollards at the south entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which would be activated (raised) only during the museums' non-operating hours (estimated before 9:30am and after 5:30pm and on days the museums are closed). This will allow for passenger drop-off and disabled access during the museums' operating hours, as well as access for Muni buses and emergency vehicles at all hours. Resolved that the San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee urges the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to approve Golden Gate Park Concourse Circulation Plan, Option 2A, with the modifications as identified in sub-items 1) & 2), above. 11. Adjournment DISABILITY ACCESS: Room 408 of City Hall is wheelchair accessible. The closest accessible BART Station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: #47 Van Ness, and the #71 Haight/Noriega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the Metro stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible services, call 923-6142. There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to Davies Hall and the War Memorial Complex. Large print copies of the agenda, sign language interpreters, or assistive listening systems can be made available by contacting the DPT staff liaison, Lorraine R. Fuqua, at 415-554-9808.. In order to assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity, or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. The Sunshine Ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review. For information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact Donna Hall; by mail to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco CA 94102 by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-7854 or by email at Donna.Hall(a)sfgov.org Citizens may obtain a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance by contacting Ms. Hall or by printing Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code on the Internet, at http://www.sfgov.org/sunshine.htm Persons from the public may inspect documents referred to on the agenda by contacting our staff liaison, Frank Markowitz at 252-4696. LOBBYIST ORDINANCE Individuals and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action may be required by the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Section 2.100, to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please contact the Ethics Commission at 30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3900, San Francisco, CA 94102, telephone 415-581-2300, fax 415-581-2317, or visit their Web site at www.sfgov.org/ethics/. _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Re: November Initiative to Stop the Widening of MLK Drive in
by funking＠mindspring.com 12 Jul '05

12 Jul '05

As I understand it, these are two separate issues- concourse circulation and dedicated garage entrance. Here's what I know: The judge ruled that the garage backers can have a southern entrance and use a modified MLK drive as the dedicated entrance. I don't say 'widened' since they are not going to widen the road at all- just re stripe it for four lanes of car traffic from Lincoln to the concourse. The garage backers are willing to put a measure on the ballot (and pay for it, per the settlement with Steve and Alliance for GG Park) to undo the requirement that the southern entrance has a dedicated lane. After this, they can have the south entrance without modifying MLK to create four lanes of car traffic. The ballot measure is a stop gap to keep a freeway from going into the park and let the museum folks have what they want (which they will get anyway). The circulation plan is decided by the Board of Supes, who are leaning towards a plan that will allow auto traffic through the concourse. The garage backers are now saying that if we oppose this and interfere, they will pull out of the ballot to preserve MLK. Many of the folks who want to save MLK drive have backed off of the campaign to offer a different circulation solution to the board of supervisors. Others of us are pushing ahead with a plan to limit traffic in the concourse to drop off only accessible by the south entrance and no through traffic. Again, these two efforts are separate, but being linked by the garage backers who are using the ballot measure for MLK as a chit to keep park advocates from limiting car access through the concourse. As for the supes, we need to get them to agree to a less car intensive option (limit drop off options and no way to drive all the way through). Ross resolution to ban all traffic in the concourse is in a committee with Dufty, Ma and McGoldrick, so it will not likely see the light of day, by the way. I am back on Friday, and we can talk more then. peace, susan -----Original Message----- From: Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> Sent: Jul 11, 2005 10:53 AM To: Stephen Willis <savegoldengatepark(a)yahoo.com>, SFGP Transpo WG <transpo(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: [Transpo] Re: November Initiative to Stop the Widening of MLK Drive in I re-read your email and see that a ballot measure is part of the settlement agreement. Well at least they're paying for it. But now we have to vote for something that says we like the second garage entrance in the park? That's messed up! In the negotiations of things to consider to put in there, what about: a requirement that the Concourse be accessible with bike lanes from both Fulton and Lincoln? An entirely reasonable request. No through traffic in the Concourse Removal of car parking spaces in the vicinity of the garage, not just wherever the hell in the park they want to remove the spaces from. Dave On the substance of this email, I really hope a ballot measure is unnecessary. Perhaps I don't understand the judge's ruling, but it seems if we went as a united front to the judge against widening of JFK Drive, and no "voter" showed up to protest it, the judge would permit the south entrance without widening, which is of course a damn shame but the result you're going for with the ballot measure. If you're going to negotiate something to put on the ballot, put "no through traffic in the Concourse" on there. That's a worthwhile victory. Dave At 6:13 PM -0700 7/9/05, Stephen Willis wrote: >Sorry for any duplication, but wanted SFGP Transpo WG to get this in >case you are not on the staff list. > >John, Susan and all, > >With all due respect, I believe you missed my point. There is a >meeting of the Campaign and Issues Group this week, and an important >initiative of which you and Susan and I are aware, but which is not >on that meeting agenda. I believe this initiative deserves >attention as soon as possible and for several reasons: > >1) It would mandate NO WIDENING OF MLK DRIVE from 9th Avenue and >LIncoln Way to the intersection of Academy Drive, as you and Susan >described. But, it also amends the original wording of Prop J, The >Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998, to allow their second, >unwanted garage entrance without requiring dedicated access to that >second entrance from outside the Park. Wording which was originally >intended to exclude any entrances from being built inside the Park >will now be changed to accommodate a ruling by a partisan >Republican, pro-privatization judge. > >The settlement agreement we negotiated requires Warren Hellman's >Music Concourse Community Partnership (MCCP) to submit an initiative >for this November to stop the widening of MLK Drive from two to four >traffic lanes, and will also legitimize or make legal the second >garage entrance in conformance with Judge Warren's ruling of June >16th. This is not exactly a victory for The City or the Voters. >Let's not forget what we're losing. > >2) You and other officers of the Sierra Club and the Green Party >negotiated an auto-free Pedestrian Oasis in exchange for permitting >the privately-funded construction and ownership of the 800 car under >ground garage. But now the leading stakeholders have all but given >up on achieving the Pedestrian Oasis that was promised, because >Aaron Peskin says we don't have the votes from the other Democratic >Supervisors to prohibit commuter and cross-park traffic specifically. > >You said they are tired of dealing with the Music Concourse issue. >Several of them, including Aaron and Jake have expressed regrets >that they ever supported the garage, or worked with Hellman's people >in the first place. And I'm talking about Dick Young, CEO of the >Music Concourse Community Partnership, and Mike Ellzey, executive >director of the Concourse Authority. (Dick Young made personal >threats to our paralegal investigator, Howard Herships, and Josh >Hart, former Program Director for SFBC. And you told me that Mike >Ellzey threatened you with financial ruin last winter, if you >continued to buck the Concourse Authority or the MCCP or cause any >further delays in their project.) > >Through intimidation and threats, they have tried to scare their >opponents, and get us to settle for a weakly-worded resolution from >Ross that betrays the original Pedestrian Oasis vision that was >approved by San Francisco voters. > WE don't have to settle for less because the majority of Democrats >on the Board refuse to support it. > >You have the right to raise the bar on Ross's resolution on the >Surface Circulation Plan, whether that makes it uncomfortable for >Democrats or not. After all, they approved the bogus EIR and MCCP's >35 year ground lease. > >3) The voters never approved the second garage entrance, and >neither did the Sierra Club or you, Howard Strassner, Clayton >Mansfield, Becky Evens, Denise D'Anne, Jennifer Clary, or Dave >Snyder. It is my understanding that the deal you all collectively >brokered with Michael Yaki and the deYoung Museum, required no >garage entrances inside the park, regardless of what some corrupt >activist Republican judge declares. > >Judge Warren has thrown out almost all of the promises The City and >Warren Hellman made seven years ago. The conflict here lies in the >glaring contrast between what the deYoung and the Academy of >Sciences promised you and Dave and the others over seven years ago, >which provided the basis for your decision to encourage the Sierra >Club to remain neutral on Prop J, and the reality of the The City's >failure to follow through on any of those promises to protect the >public interest and Golden Gate Park. > >I appreciate your intentions to make the best of a bad situation, >but the fact of the matter is that the Alliance and Save Golden Gate >Park! negotiated this agreement with the City and the MCCP and we >don't want to see it rubber-stamped by the Board and then go quietly >to the ballot without a discussion of the full impact if it passes, >and if it does not. > >We also don't want to see the MLK Drive initiative portrayed as a >final solution that the Green Party sponsored, or must sponsor, and >thereby contribute to the MCCP/deYoung spin machine. Not widening >MLK Drive is not a final solution to the problems with the garage. >It was the best we could negotiate, given a really, really bad >decision by a really bad Republican judge, and given the reality of >an even worse panel of Appellate Court judges. We won't begin to >see the real problems with the garages until they are in operation, >because the EIR is trash and provides absolutely no insight to >future problems. > >You have the right to discuss a second voters initiative that would >mandate NO MLK Drive Widening, and add on Saturday JFK Closure, and >NO Music Concourse traffic other than MUNI and disabled drop off. > > >Respectfully yours, > >Stephen Willis >Save Golden Gate Park! > > >At 05:58 PM 7/8/2005, John Rizzo wrote: > >Both Susan and I have read the main portions of the draft over the phone >to Steve. > >As far as releasing copies, it is up to Ross. He is sponosoring it, so >he is the one to say whether an unfinished draft is to be circulated. > >I talked to Ross today. He has forwarded the draft to the City Attorney >to check it for accuracy and what not. The City Attorney will probably >have suggestions. > >This is good legislation that stops the 4 lanes in Golden Gate Park. >Ross and the Green Party benefit from having sponsored the solution to >this problem. > >John > >PS. I'm leaving town on Saturday, and won't be checking email. I return >on the 17th. > >>Susan, >> >>Insofar as you and John Rizzo are currently negotiating with Concourse >>Authority President Nancy Connor and MCCP's Mary Hughes the wording for >>a >>November ballot initiative to stop the widening of MLK Drive, I believe >>it >>would benefit the Campaigns and Issues WG to have your draft of the >>initiative as you described it to me on Wednesday. >> >>Save Golden Gate Park! and the Alliance for Golden Gate Park, Chris >>Duderstadt, Janice Rothstein and myself, entered into a binding >>settlement >>agreement with the City and the Music Concourse Community Partnership >>almost two months ago requiring them to go back to the voters to stop >>the >>widening of MLK Drive from two to four traffic lanes, if they are going >>to >>go ahead and force their Academy Drive garage entrance inside the Music >>Concourse. >> >>We negotiated this settlement because it was clear from his ruling last >>August, 2004, that Judge Warren was going to soon give them everything > >they >>wanted, and that was the only environmental mitigation we could extract > >from the other side, along with $30,000 for their initiative, and >>$30,000 >>for pedestrian improvements in the Concourse. >> >>This process that you and John are involved in with Nancy Connor and >>Mary >>Hughes, including the wording and development of this initiative, needs >>to >>be completely transparent to us and to the public. And the final >>initiative >>wording will need approval from not just the City Attorney, and MCCP's >>attorney, but our attorney as well. ...And then an endorsement or not >>from >>the San Francisco Green Party. >> >>Please add this initiative for discussion to your agenda for your July > >11th >>Campaigns and Issues meeting. >> >>How does Ross or the Green Party benefit from sponsoring this >>initiative? It has to be sponsored by at least four of the >Supervisors, >>so >>why not let those Democrats who supported and ratified the sham Garage >>EIR >>and the MCCP's ground lease/privatization of the Park for the next 35 >>years >>sponsor the MLK initiative?? >> >>Your feedback is appreciated, >> >>Steve Willis >>Save Golden Gate Park! > > > > "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >Transpo mailing list >Transpo(a)sfgreens.org >https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: November Initiative to Stop the Widening of MLK Drive in
by Stephen Willis 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Sorry for any duplication, but wanted SFGP Transpo WG to get this in case you are not on the staff list. John, Susan and all, With all due respect, I believe you missed my point. There is a meeting of the Campaign and Issues Group this week, and an important initiative of which you and Susan and I are aware, but which is not on that meeting agenda. I believe this initiative deserves attention as soon as possible and for several reasons: 1) It would mandate NO WIDENING OF MLK DRIVE from 9th Avenue and LIncoln Way to the intersection of Academy Drive, as you and Susan described. But, it also amends the original wording of Prop J, The Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998, to allow their second, unwanted garage entrance without requiring dedicated access to that second entrance from outside the Park. Wording which was originally intended to exclude any entrances from being built inside the Park will now be changed to accommodate a ruling by a partisan Republican, pro-privatization judge. The settlement agreement we negotiated requires Warren Hellman's Music Concourse Community Partnership (MCCP) to submit an initiative for this November to stop the widening of MLK Drive from two to four traffic lanes, and will also legitimize or make legal the second garage entrance in conformance with Judge Warren's ruling of June 16th. This is not exactly a victory for The City or the Voters. Let's not forget what we're losing. 2) You and other officers of the Sierra Club and the Green Party negotiated an auto-free Pedestrian Oasis in exchange for permitting the privately-funded construction and ownership of the 800 car under ground garage. But now the leading stakeholders have all but given up on achieving the Pedestrian Oasis that was promised, because Aaron Peskin says we don't have the votes from the other Democratic Supervisors to prohibit commuter and cross-park traffic specifically. You said they are tired of dealing with the Music Concourse issue. Several of them, including Aaron and Jake have expressed regrets that they ever supported the garage, or worked with Hellman's people in the first place. And I'm talking about Dick Young, CEO of the Music Concourse Community Partnership, and Mike Ellzey, executive director of the Concourse Authority. (Dick Young made personal threats to our paralegal investigator, Howard Herships, and Josh Hart, former Program Director for SFBC. And you told me that Mike Ellzey threatened you with financial ruin last winter, if you continued to buck the Concourse Authority or the MCCP or cause any further delays in their project.) Through intimidation and threats, they have tried to scare their opponents, and get us to settle for a weakly-worded resolution from Ross that betrays the original Pedestrian Oasis vision that was approved by San Francisco voters. WE don't have to settle for less because the majority of Democrats on the Board refuse to support it. You have the right to raise the bar on Ross's resolution on the Surface Circulation Plan, whether that makes it uncomfortable for Democrats or not. After all, they approved the bogus EIR and MCCP's 35 year ground lease. 3) The voters never approved the second garage entrance, and neither did the Sierra Club or you, Howard Strassner, Clayton Mansfield, Becky Evens, Denise D'Anne, Jennifer Clary, or Dave Snyder. It is my understanding that the deal you all collectively brokered with Michael Yaki and the deYoung Museum, required no garage entrances inside the park, regardless of what some corrupt activist Republican judge declares. Judge Warren has thrown out almost all of the promises The City and Warren Hellman made seven years ago. The conflict here lies in the glaring contrast between what the deYoung and the Academy of Sciences promised you and Dave and the others over seven years ago, which provided the basis for your decision to encourage the Sierra Club to remain neutral on Prop J, and the reality of the The City's failure to follow through on any of those promises to protect the public interest and Golden Gate Park. I appreciate your intentions to make the best of a bad situation, but the fact of the matter is that the Alliance and Save Golden Gate Park! negotiated this agreement with the City and the MCCP and we don't want to see it rubber-stamped by the Board and then go quietly to the ballot without a discussion of the full impact if it passes, and if it does not. We also don't want to see the MLK Drive initiative portrayed as a final solution that the Green Party sponsored, or must sponsor, and thereby contribute to the MCCP/deYoung spin machine. Not widening MLK Drive is not a final solution to the problems with the garage. It was the best we could negotiate, given a really, really bad decision by a really bad Republican judge, and given the reality of an even worse panel of Appellate Court judges. We won't begin to see the real problems with the garages until they are in operation, because the EIR is trash and provides absolutely no insight to future problems. You have the right to discuss a second voters initiative that would mandate NO MLK Drive Widening, and add on Saturday JFK Closure, and NO Music Concourse traffic other than MUNI and disabled drop off. Respectfully yours, Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park! At 05:58 PM 7/8/2005, John Rizzo wrote: Both Susan and I have read the main portions of the draft over the phone to Steve. As far as releasing copies, it is up to Ross. He is sponosoring it, so he is the one to say whether an unfinished draft is to be circulated. I talked to Ross today. He has forwarded the draft to the City Attorney to check it for accuracy and what not. The City Attorney will probably have suggestions. This is good legislation that stops the 4 lanes in Golden Gate Park. Ross and the Green Party benefit from having sponsored the solution to this problem. John PS. I'm leaving town on Saturday, and won't be checking email. I return on the 17th. >Susan, > >Insofar as you and John Rizzo are currently negotiating with Concourse >Authority President Nancy Connor and MCCP's Mary Hughes the wording for >a >November ballot initiative to stop the widening of MLK Drive, I believe >it >would benefit the Campaigns and Issues WG to have your draft of the >initiative as you described it to me on Wednesday. > >Save Golden Gate Park! and the Alliance for Golden Gate Park, Chris >Duderstadt, Janice Rothstein and myself, entered into a binding >settlement >agreement with the City and the Music Concourse Community Partnership >almost two months ago requiring them to go back to the voters to stop >the >widening of MLK Drive from two to four traffic lanes, if they are going >to >go ahead and force their Academy Drive garage entrance inside the Music >Concourse. > >We negotiated this settlement because it was clear from his ruling last >August, 2004, that Judge Warren was going to soon give them everything >they >wanted, and that was the only environmental mitigation we could extract >from the other side, along with $30,000 for their initiative, and >$30,000 >for pedestrian improvements in the Concourse. > >This process that you and John are involved in with Nancy Connor and >Mary >Hughes, including the wording and development of this initiative, needs >to >be completely transparent to us and to the public. And the final >initiative >wording will need approval from not just the City Attorney, and MCCP's >attorney, but our attorney as well. ...And then an endorsement or not >from >the San Francisco Green Party. > >Please add this initiative for discussion to your agenda for your July >11th >Campaigns and Issues meeting. > >How does Ross or the Green Party benefit from sponsoring this >initiative? It has to be sponsored by at least four of the Supervisors, >so >why not let those Democrats who supported and ratified the sham Garage >EIR >and the MCCP's ground lease/privatization of the Park for the next 35 >years >sponsor the MLK initiative?? > >Your feedback is appreciated, > >Steve Willis >Save Golden Gate Park! "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 2

Re: November Initiative to Stop the Widening of MLK Drive in
by Dave Snyder 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

I re-read your email and see that a ballot measure is part of the settlement agreement. Well at least they're paying for it. But now we have to vote for something that says we like the second garage entrance in the park? That's messed up! In the negotiations of things to consider to put in there, what about: a requirement that the Concourse be accessible with bike lanes from both Fulton and Lincoln? An entirely reasonable request. No through traffic in the Concourse Removal of car parking spaces in the vicinity of the garage, not just wherever the hell in the park they want to remove the spaces from. Dave On the substance of this email, I really hope a ballot measure is unnecessary. Perhaps I don't understand the judge's ruling, but it seems if we went as a united front to the judge against widening of JFK Drive, and no "voter" showed up to protest it, the judge would permit the south entrance without widening, which is of course a damn shame but the result you're going for with the ballot measure. If you're going to negotiate something to put on the ballot, put "no through traffic in the Concourse" on there. That's a worthwhile victory. Dave At 6:13 PM -0700 7/9/05, Stephen Willis wrote: >Sorry for any duplication, but wanted SFGP Transpo WG to get this in >case you are not on the staff list. > >John, Susan and all, > >With all due respect, I believe you missed my point. There is a >meeting of the Campaign and Issues Group this week, and an important >initiative of which you and Susan and I are aware, but which is not >on that meeting agenda. I believe this initiative deserves >attention as soon as possible and for several reasons: > >1) It would mandate NO WIDENING OF MLK DRIVE from 9th Avenue and >LIncoln Way to the intersection of Academy Drive, as you and Susan >described. But, it also amends the original wording of Prop J, The >Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998, to allow their second, >unwanted garage entrance without requiring dedicated access to that >second entrance from outside the Park. Wording which was originally >intended to exclude any entrances from being built inside the Park >will now be changed to accommodate a ruling by a partisan >Republican, pro-privatization judge. > >The settlement agreement we negotiated requires Warren Hellman's >Music Concourse Community Partnership (MCCP) to submit an initiative >for this November to stop the widening of MLK Drive from two to four >traffic lanes, and will also legitimize or make legal the second >garage entrance in conformance with Judge Warren's ruling of June >16th. This is not exactly a victory for The City or the Voters. >Let's not forget what we're losing. > >2) You and other officers of the Sierra Club and the Green Party >negotiated an auto-free Pedestrian Oasis in exchange for permitting >the privately-funded construction and ownership of the 800 car under >ground garage. But now the leading stakeholders have all but given >up on achieving the Pedestrian Oasis that was promised, because >Aaron Peskin says we don't have the votes from the other Democratic >Supervisors to prohibit commuter and cross-park traffic specifically. > >You said they are tired of dealing with the Music Concourse issue. >Several of them, including Aaron and Jake have expressed regrets >that they ever supported the garage, or worked with Hellman's people >in the first place. And I'm talking about Dick Young, CEO of the >Music Concourse Community Partnership, and Mike Ellzey, executive >director of the Concourse Authority. (Dick Young made personal >threats to our paralegal investigator, Howard Herships, and Josh >Hart, former Program Director for SFBC. And you told me that Mike >Ellzey threatened you with financial ruin last winter, if you >continued to buck the Concourse Authority or the MCCP or cause any >further delays in their project.) > >Through intimidation and threats, they have tried to scare their >opponents, and get us to settle for a weakly-worded resolution from >Ross that betrays the original Pedestrian Oasis vision that was >approved by San Francisco voters. > WE don't have to settle for less because the majority of Democrats >on the Board refuse to support it. > >You have the right to raise the bar on Ross's resolution on the >Surface Circulation Plan, whether that makes it uncomfortable for >Democrats or not. After all, they approved the bogus EIR and MCCP's >35 year ground lease. > >3) The voters never approved the second garage entrance, and >neither did the Sierra Club or you, Howard Strassner, Clayton >Mansfield, Becky Evens, Denise D'Anne, Jennifer Clary, or Dave >Snyder. It is my understanding that the deal you all collectively >brokered with Michael Yaki and the deYoung Museum, required no >garage entrances inside the park, regardless of what some corrupt >activist Republican judge declares. > >Judge Warren has thrown out almost all of the promises The City and >Warren Hellman made seven years ago. The conflict here lies in the >glaring contrast between what the deYoung and the Academy of >Sciences promised you and Dave and the others over seven years ago, >which provided the basis for your decision to encourage the Sierra >Club to remain neutral on Prop J, and the reality of the The City's >failure to follow through on any of those promises to protect the >public interest and Golden Gate Park. > >I appreciate your intentions to make the best of a bad situation, >but the fact of the matter is that the Alliance and Save Golden Gate >Park! negotiated this agreement with the City and the MCCP and we >don't want to see it rubber-stamped by the Board and then go quietly >to the ballot without a discussion of the full impact if it passes, >and if it does not. > >We also don't want to see the MLK Drive initiative portrayed as a >final solution that the Green Party sponsored, or must sponsor, and >thereby contribute to the MCCP/deYoung spin machine. Not widening >MLK Drive is not a final solution to the problems with the garage. >It was the best we could negotiate, given a really, really bad >decision by a really bad Republican judge, and given the reality of >an even worse panel of Appellate Court judges. We won't begin to >see the real problems with the garages until they are in operation, >because the EIR is trash and provides absolutely no insight to >future problems. > >You have the right to discuss a second voters initiative that would >mandate NO MLK Drive Widening, and add on Saturday JFK Closure, and >NO Music Concourse traffic other than MUNI and disabled drop off. > > >Respectfully yours, > >Stephen Willis >Save Golden Gate Park! > > >At 05:58 PM 7/8/2005, John Rizzo wrote: > >Both Susan and I have read the main portions of the draft over the phone >to Steve. > >As far as releasing copies, it is up to Ross. He is sponosoring it, so >he is the one to say whether an unfinished draft is to be circulated. > >I talked to Ross today. He has forwarded the draft to the City Attorney >to check it for accuracy and what not. The City Attorney will probably >have suggestions. > >This is good legislation that stops the 4 lanes in Golden Gate Park. >Ross and the Green Party benefit from having sponsored the solution to >this problem. > >John > >PS. I'm leaving town on Saturday, and won't be checking email. I return >on the 17th. > >>Susan, >> >>Insofar as you and John Rizzo are currently negotiating with Concourse >>Authority President Nancy Connor and MCCP's Mary Hughes the wording for >>a >>November ballot initiative to stop the widening of MLK Drive, I believe >>it >>would benefit the Campaigns and Issues WG to have your draft of the >>initiative as you described it to me on Wednesday. >> >>Save Golden Gate Park! and the Alliance for Golden Gate Park, Chris >>Duderstadt, Janice Rothstein and myself, entered into a binding >>settlement >>agreement with the City and the Music Concourse Community Partnership >>almost two months ago requiring them to go back to the voters to stop >>the >>widening of MLK Drive from two to four traffic lanes, if they are going >>to >>go ahead and force their Academy Drive garage entrance inside the Music >>Concourse. >> >>We negotiated this settlement because it was clear from his ruling last >>August, 2004, that Judge Warren was going to soon give them everything > >they >>wanted, and that was the only environmental mitigation we could extract > >from the other side, along with $30,000 for their initiative, and >>$30,000 >>for pedestrian improvements in the Concourse. >> >>This process that you and John are involved in with Nancy Connor and >>Mary >>Hughes, including the wording and development of this initiative, needs >>to >>be completely transparent to us and to the public. And the final >>initiative >>wording will need approval from not just the City Attorney, and MCCP's >>attorney, but our attorney as well. ...And then an endorsement or not >>from >>the San Francisco Green Party. >> >>Please add this initiative for discussion to your agenda for your July > >11th >>Campaigns and Issues meeting. >> >>How does Ross or the Green Party benefit from sponsoring this >>initiative? It has to be sponsored by at least four of the >Supervisors, >>so >>why not let those Democrats who supported and ratified the sham Garage >>EIR >>and the MCCP's ground lease/privatization of the Park for the next 35 >>years >>sponsor the MLK initiative?? >> >>Your feedback is appreciated, >> >>Steve Willis >>Save Golden Gate Park! > > > > "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >Transpo mailing list >Transpo(a)sfgreens.org >https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0