City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee Members: Jake McGoldrick, Bevan Dufty, Fiona Ma City Hall, Room 263 Monday, August 1, 2005 1:00 PM Bruce, John and Susan, Before you venture forth adding yet another campaign to your plate, could you possibly weigh in on your success at turning out folks for this hearing on Monday. This could be the last hearing on the subject. Remember the Pedestrian Oasis that the Democratic Party, Mayor Newsom and the Democrats on the Board promised the voters? It seems that the Concourse Authority's Option 2A, returning concourse through park traffic is being introduced as something we wanted when it's not. I don't think it is a solution that creates the Pedestrian Oasis Aaron advocated for at the Finance & Audits Committee in November, 2003, when he demanded the Board's right to review and correct the Surface Circulation Plan, as a condition to approving a $54 million revenue bond and ground lease for Music Concourse Community Partnership (MCCP). How about seeing if you can get the Democratic Party Central Committee to support the auto-free Pedestrian Oasis that the voters approved in June, 1998?? If it's not too embarrassing for them to revisit the issue. I realize the Democrats you deal with would rather that the park issue just go away, because it makes them feel really uncomfortable. Mayor Brown, Michael Yaki and the Democratic Party, Newsom, et al were indispensable to the successful GreenWashing of the deYoung Underground garage. And the subsequent 35 year ground lease to the MCCP, creating the vehicle for transferring control (privatizing) of Golden Gate Park. Now, it's my understanding that the Board Democrats are telling Ross that "you don't have the votes" for anything stronger, and they intend to rubber stamp the Concourse Authority's 2A Option and screw the Pedestrian Oasis. Please help mobilize your Democratic Party friends, including Dennis Antenore, Aaron Peskin and Gerardo Sandoval to at least stand up with Jake and oppose any commuter through traffic, as Jake so courageously did a couple of months ago. His heroism was notable by it's rarity. I have three suggestions: (1) if there is going to be any traffic at all entering the concourse whether it is just MUNI, or MUNI and everyone under the sun, I believe it would be prudent to establish a 10 MPH Speed Limit in the Music Concourse. That alone should be enough to discourage all but the insane from driving through there. And, at 10 MPH, an impulsive kid darting into the roadway has a chance. I see no reason why MUNI needs to drive any faster, if it sets the pace for all motor traffic which this Board of Supervisors decides to reintroduce to the Music Concourse, in violation of their promise to Prop J Voters. (2) Retain authority over the Surface Circulation Plan in the Board of Supervisors's hands, not the Rec & Parks Commission or any other corrupt city department, including the Concourse Authority. If these machine Democrats sell out the park, at least we can replace them someday with Supervisors who might take back control of the Music Concourse and stop the through traffic. One or two deaths should give them the excuse to do what they should have done in the first place. (3) Establish performance review standards to determine if option 2A, or which ever option is adopted, satisfies the intent of Prop J to reduce the impact of the automobile on the Park, etc.... Good luck as you go forward and and attempt to influence your Democratic Party friends. Let's not let Peskin, McGoldrick, Sandoval and the rest of them, off the hook. Adopt a Democrat and hold him accountable today! Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park! City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee Members: Jake McGoldrick, Bevan Dufty, Fiona Ma City Hall, Room 263 Monday, August 1, 2005 1:00 PM 9.051247 The following is a description of the Resolution 2A, but it DOES NOT prohibit cut-through, or cross-park traffic. It is grossly misleading, and it is unlikely that any stronger wording or resolution will be forthcoming out of this Democrat dominated committee unless the leading stakeholders, including the San Francisco Bike Coalition, the San Francisco Sierra Club, Walk SF, SF Green Party and others turn out to remind them about their promises seven years ago at the polls. Read further below how the Music Concourse Community Partnership and the Concourse Authority are attempting to further manipulate this process at the Board level, by threatening to withdraw their support for the ballot initiative which we negotiated with them in good faith. They never quit. Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park! [Golden Gate Park Music Concourse - Surface Circulation Plan] Supervisors Mirkarimi, McGoldrick, Peskin Resolution approving the Golden Gate Park Music Concourse Surface Circulation Plan known as Option 2A, which prohibits the use of the Music Concourse for cut-through automobile traffic and provides for vehicular drop-off for visitors to the Concourse from the north and south; making environmental and other findings; and authorizing official acts in connection with this approval. The chair intends to consider referring this item as a committee report to the Board of Supervisors meeting of August 2, 2005. ON Monday JULY 11th I received this from Susan working on an ad hoc committee regarding a Resolution authored by Ross Mirkirimi to address the Surface Circulation Plan for the Concourse: 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. Response to BeyondChron.org article: http://www.beyondchron.org/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=126&twindow=Default&m... At 11:42 AM 7/29/2005, Bruce Wolfe wrote:
I concur. Bruce
susan_e_vaughan@juno.com wrote:
Can we get the Green Party to take a stand on this? I've already forwarded it to Dave Wilbur. Perhaps the TWG should also weigh in.
Sue
--- John Rizzo <jrizzo@sprintmail.com> wrote:
I was at the Democratic Central Committee to help to pitch an anti-Mills Mall/Pier 27-31 position. We won unanimously except for 3 abstentions. The DCCC resolution is below.
The Board of Supervisors will soon be voting on the waterfront Mills megamall/parking garage/anti-bike project.
The other night, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club opposed the project and condemned the Mills company for its political contributions to right-wing, anti-gay republicans.
John
RESOLUTION BY THE SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRATIC PARTY URGING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOT TO APPROVE PROPOSED MILLS PIERS 27-31 PROJECT OR ANY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH VOTER MANDATE OF PROPOSITION H
WHEREAS, voters in approving Proposition H in 1990 asked that the priority for waterfront development be maritime and other water-essential activities and the Port Request for Proposals for Piers 27-31 asked for recreational and water-essential activities, and
WHEREAS, some pending Port proposals for waterfront development, such as the proposed Mills Corporation's Shopping Mall and Office Complex at Piers 27-31, are not consistent with these priorities, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors will soon begin reviewing and deciding on whether or not to approve the proposed Mills Piers 27-31 Project, now
THEREFORE, be it resolved that the San Francisco Democratic Party (SF Democratic County Central Committee) urges the Board of Supervisors not to approve the Mills Piers 27-31 Project as proposed or any waterfront development project that is not appropriate for our unique and historic San Francisco waterfront and that does not comply with the spirit of Proposition H, in which voters asked that the priority for the waterfront be for maritime and water-essential activities.
Adopted by majority vote of the San Francisco Democratic Central Committee on July 27, 2005.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
************************************************************************************************** "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - ~ Goethe (1749-1832) **************************************************************************************************