|
|
| Proposition J: The
Road to Hell (Yes on I; No on J)
The proponents of Proposition J -- the plan to rebuild, widen and expand the earthquake-damaged section of the Central Freeway -- argue with the passion of religious zealots that Armageddon will befall us if we tear it down and replace it with a surface boulevard. In their fire and brimstone ranting, they warn that a plague of gridlock, pollution and death will ensue if that stretch of highway isn't rebuilt. But that four-block-long section doesn't hold up the heavens and when it comes down the sky won't follow. The transportation experts at the DPT, Caltrans and the San Francisco Transportation authority all concur. They conclude that patching up this 1950's freeway will do nothing to solve today's complex traffic problems. It will only end up costing more and taking longer to build. Furthermore, a 1998 "Northern Access Study" concluded the Prop J plan cannot provide convenient freeway access to north and eastside neighborhoods. But the boulevard plan voters approved last year would. Prop J proponents scare us with exaggerated traffic counts, warn of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and claim their plan is better for the environment. Why then do all pedestrian, bicycle and environmental advocates, including Walk San Francisco, the SF Bicycle Coalition and the Sierra Club support Octavia Boulevard? We need to remember that Oak and Fell were never meant to be the terminus for the Central Freeway. When it was originally designed in the '50s, the freeway was meant to extend west through Golden Gate Park and north to the planned Marina Freeway. It's only due to the '60s freeway revolt and the Loma Prieta Earthquake that it now ends in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Prop J would only replicate and perpetuate that mistake. On the other hand, Octavia Boulevard has been designed by transportation planners and engineers to efficiently move and disperse traffic, linking the freeway with Oak and Fell, as well as Franklin and Gough. Side streets, separated by tree-lined islands, would safely accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and local traffic. The 10th anniversary of the Loma Prieta
Earthquake serves as a vivid reminder that it's foolhardy to patch up an
old elevated freeway in
Walking beneath the freeway, one is reminded of another safety issue -- crime. Currently the elevated structure is a haven for prostitution, drug dealing and other criminal activity. Prop J's proposal to double its width will only make things worse. On January 1st, nine acres of Caltrans-owned land from Market to Turk will be transferred to San Francisco. Prop I, co-sponsored by Supervisors Ammiano, Bierman, Katz and Leno, specifies this land shall be used exclusively for new housing and the construction of Octavia Boulevard. The land value is estimated to be over $30 million with proceeds from the sale to be used for citywide transportation improvements. Prop J would use and reserve this land for freeway expansion, preventing the construction of new homes and taking away transportation funding. Yes, congestion is a problem in San Francisco. Rational planning, not hysterics is the way to a solution. We have learned from the demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway that we don't have to compromise beauty and livability to move traffic. Given all the benefits of the Octavia Boulevard Plan, it's a wonder why anyone would opt to patch up the stub of a 1950's freeway that will do more to despoil San Francisco than improve transportation. On November 2nd vote "AYE" on I and "NAY" on J to build the boulevard. It's the right road to take. Robin F. Levitt, Architect Asian-Americans for Octavia Boulevard Dear Editor: Much worthy credit goes to San Francisco's Asian community, which two years ago mobilized to end political indecision and restore service to the Central Freeway. Ultimately last year, through weighing of different options and the evolution of design concepts, that effort culminated in the voters' approval of the Octavia Boulevard Plan. As a result of that vote, the City established a Central Freeway Project Office, which is moving forward with the design and implementation of Octavia Boulevard. The project is expected to be completed and open by early 2001. However, this year a group opposed to the Boulevard Plan has put a measure on the ballot--Proposition J--that would halt all progress to date and repeal last year's vote. This new measure would widen and expand the earthquake-damaged portion of the Central Freeway. According to city and state transportation agency reports, the Boulevard Plan has many more benefits than the Prop J retrofit plan: 1. It's Less Expensive
2. It Takes Less Time to Build
3. It's Safer
4. It's a More Effective Traffic
Plan
In addition, the Octavia Boulevard Plan more than pays for itself. It would free up approximately nine acres of surplus land for housing development, bringing additional tax revenue to the City. The sale of that land would provide San Francisco with over $30 million for funding transit and transportation improvements throughout the City. Proposition I specifies that this land shall only be used for construction of housing and the Boulevard. On the other hand, Prop J would use 1/3 of the land for freeway construction. Proposition J is NOT in the best interests of all San Franciscans. It would put in place a plan that costs more, takes longer to build, is not as safe and provides less neighborhood access than the Octavia Boulevard Plan.. Prop J would take away millions of dollars in city-wide transportation improvements and would prevent the construction of much-needed housing. San Francisco's Asian community values families and neighborhoods and we value sound transportation planning. Professional traffic analysis indicates there are negligible transit time differences between the Central Freeway retrofit and the Octavia Boulevard Plan. However, Chinatown and North Beach, in particular, would benefit from the improved north/south traffic distribution of the boulevard plan. The Octavia Boulevard Plan will also greatly enhance neighborhoods, community beautification, family structure and housing. For all of these reasons, Asian-Americans for Octavia Boulevard supports Prop I and opposes Prop J. To move forward much more quickly, we support the Octavia Boulevard Plan. It will bring prosperity to communities and better serve ALL San Franciscans. Please vote "Yes" on I and "No" on J. Howard Wong, American Institute of Architects
New Captain at Ingleside Station Dear Ingleside Resident or Merchant: On August 11, 1999, I assumed command of the Ingleside Police District. A lot in my 18-year career and nearly two year stint as the Night Supervising Captain prepared me for that morning. But nothing prepared me for the awesome response from the community. Within hours, countless community leaders called me to assess my commitment to the community. As a new Captain I am still in the phase where I get to say "Gee, I don't know" a lot, but one thing I do know is that I inherited a district in which my predecessor Captain Rick Bruce established outstanding outreach and involvement with the community. Rick and I have worked together for many years and I share his vision and commitment to the officers and the community of Ingleside. In the months and years ahead I look forward to meeting many of you personally. Just as importantly, I look forward to you meeting the exceptional men and women in blue who literally work night and day as guardians of your neighborhoods. I am proud to be a member of this high performance police team and to be a part of your vivid and diverse community. Sincerely,
Supplemental EIR for Executive Park Development Plan Following are comments made Sept. 2 by George P. Yerby regarding a hearing before the Planning Commission on certification of the supplemental EIR for the Executive Park Development Plan. My name is George Yerby. I was the original developer of the San Francisco Executive Park, and I am the owner of the building at 5 Thomas Mellon Circle; my building is one of three office buildings located in the Executive Park. I came up with the original concept for the Executive Park, which was to provide for sensible, sustainable commercial development of the Candlestick Point area. Our focus was on insuring that the neighborhoods in the area, like Little Hollywood, remained viable with a minimum of impact from the new development, while at the same time providing employment for the area, thereby improving the economy in this section of the City. Tom Mellon, who was for 12 years the Chief Administrative Officer of the City and County of San Francisco, was also my mentor on this project; Tom believed in this concept and helped facilitate the development of Executive Park. In 1975, I founded the San Francisco Executive Park Planning Committee consisting of residents of the Bayview-Hunters Point, Little Hollywood and Visitacion Valley neighborhoods; that committee continues to exist to this day under the chairmanship of Shirley Jones. The SEIR cannot be certified in its present form for the following reasons, among others: 1. The SEIR, and the transportation study prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates in June of this year failed to address the basic premise the governs the Executive Park site. This site is, for all interests and purposes, a suburban office park located within the City of San Francisco. Although the proposed development, as revised, includes 4,308 additional parking spaces as part of the proposed project, the impact of added parking and its resultant impact on auto trips generated at the site is not adequately addressed in the SEIR. The use of the same transportation guidelines designed for downtown development projects does not properly consider the expected trips that will be produced as a result of the proposed project. 2. The proposed project "deletes" transportation improvements previously considered essential to serve the site. Since the number of trips anticipated to be generated by the current proposed development has gone up considerably as compared to previous approvals, we do not see any conditions which justify the "deletion" of previously required conditions of approval. To the contrary, I believe that additional mitigations are required to solve the traffic problems identified on the current SEIR. 3. The current proposal would also negate the 1985 condition that commercial parking be limited to 3,235 spaces, in order to mitigate traffic impacts. The limitation was put in place to require the developer to either create a more transit-friendly project or reduce the amount of office space proposed. Now, the developer wants to do neither. The SEIR does not adequately address this very significant change. 4. The 1985 EIR stated that there would be gridlock on 101 and all but two of the area intersections by the year 2015. The SEIR repeats this statement, but does not address the issue of how much more quickly gridlock will occur on 101 in light of the expansion and scope of the project as currently proposed versus what was approved in 1985, and in light of other existing and proposed developments in the 101 corridor area. It is of critical importance to develop in the 101 corridor area that we address very carefully when gridlock can be expected to occur on 101. Even more importantly, in dealing with the issue of gridlock on 101 and the mitigation of that gridlock, we really have to address the issue of the reconfiguration of the entire Candlestick/101 interchange, which has never functioned well. The rebuilding of this interchange, with the attendant reconfiguration of Geneva Avenue as called for under the South Bayshore Plan, is an integral part of dealing with traffic issues in the 101 corridor, extension of light rail to this site, and the impact of the proposed development on those traffic issues. We propose that the SEIR be required to address the issue of exactly how the Candlestick interchange should be reconfigured and rebuilt to address the gridlock issues imminently facing us on 101, and should address how this project needs to participate in the funding of a new interchange. The SEIR should not be certified until the issues of the rebuilding on the Candlestick interchange and the Geneva Avenue extension are resolved. 5. The adoption of the Downtown Plan calls for the concentration of office space in the Downtown urban core that is well served by public transit. This general plan calls for the biotech industry to be located at Mission Bay. You need to consider the fact that there are limitations on the amount of square footage that can be approved in any one year, and the fact that there are limitations to the capacities of our roadways and the amount of dollars to improve our public transit. 6. Moreover, under the policies for Executive Park, 70 percent of the employees are to commute by transit, ride sharing or other alternative modes to single occupant vehicles. The SEIR contemplates instead that the vast majority of employees will be commuting by single occupancy vehicles. As you consider the project, we look forward to working with the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission to resolve some of the issues identified. Under separate cover we will transmit our formal comments. Too Much Crime in Grapevine Dear Editor: The September 1999 issue is 8 pages long. Of these 8 pages, almost 2.5 pages are devoted to the Ingleside Station Police Report. In addition, approximately one-half of page three is devoted to reports from the DA's office. The DA's reports concern rape, burglary and drug trafficking. My suggestion is drop the crime reporting and report on news from the neighborhood. I can't help feeling that crime is considered by the Grapevine to be an overriding obsession with the folks in Vis Valley. I so hope this is not the case. I would rather see more adds for businesses and services in the Valley than stories about crime. I would like to see stories about the Community Center or the Village or the Beacon or John King Senior Center, than stories about crime. Vis Valley is a neighborhood with a lot of children and seniors, probably more than in most other neighborhoods in S.F. Seniors and families with children would be benefitted by information regarding children's services and senior services in the Valley. Another suggestion, drop the crime reports and use the extra space to enlarge the print. Again, a neighborhood with a high number of children and seniors needs a newspaper with larger print. I understand that crime is a reality in our neighborhood (although I suspect that the incidence is exaggerated) but such heavy reliance on the crime log in your newspaper is depressing and I believe, undermines a very valuable resource of this neighborhood, an established and credible voice for the community, the Grapevine. Thank you for your time and attention. Molly Hassler Editor Len Appiano responds: Many readers of the Grapevine have already expressed positive interest in the newspaper's police reports. There is no exaggeration. Each incident is assigned a legitimate case number by the San Francisco Police Department. And no crime story has ever supplanted any submitted story relating to news in Visitacion Valley. At 9.8 New Times Roman, the basic font used in the Grapevine is comparable to most daily newspapers. And the Grapevine would surely like to have more advertising from Valley merchants. Free listings are provided each month for every business and organization in the neighborhood and are updated monthly on the Grapevine website. But a good number of advertisers would not pay invoices for their advertising, some for multiple insertions. One organization (and you folks definitely know who you are...shame on you!) even had the gall to approach the Grapevine through a different agency and request a discount after failing to pay a six-month invoice. Mayoral Candidate Merits Another Look Dear Editor: I would like to suggest there is an excellent mayoral candidate who has not been given much exposure in the media and has indeed not been taken very seriously, dubbed with the dismissive label, :perennial candidate." I suggest that Cesar Ascarrunz merits another look. I first met Cesar Ascarrunz when he ran a lively latin dance club some years ago in North Beach, later in the Mission. Since that time, the entrepreneur and businessman has run several times for office, honed his political skills and knowledge of the City, and matured considerably in the intervening years. In speaking with him, I am impressed by his knowledge, integrity, energy, and desire to "give back" to the City in which he earned his fortune. Now retired from the music and club business and devoting his unusual ability to public service, he is trying to get his message out to a broader audience without an insider's track to the press and media. Cesar has the qualifications to make a novel and positive contribution to San Francisco as mayor, and I suggest that his message, his considerable skills and energy as well as his progressive political stance be brought to the attention of a wider audience. More can be learned about Cesar, his platform and policy positions, from the Internet at www.cesar4mayor.com Peter Jacobson
Solid Work Ethic Cornerstones of Mayoral Candidate's Life Dear Editor: J.R. Manuel is a self-made man, who
started working before he was 8 years old and has developed a solid work
ethic, exceptional problem-solving skills and experience. He learned early
in life that hard work, punctuality, and integrity are the cornerstones
of success in life and that one person can make a difference. J.R.'s diversified
business interests over the past several
J.R. Manuel is also an expert in government finance who has developed a workable model for eliminating welfare through interim financing with tax credits for businesses. J.R. Manuel has a proven track record of restoring neighborhoods overrun by blight, drugs, crime, and homeless encampments. Manuel has undertaken the restoration of San Francisco's historic Anderson & Cristofani Shipyard and Marine Ways in India Basin, where Jack London's boat The Snark, as well as the vessel used in John Wayne's movie, Blood Alley, were designed and built, and where numerous other famous vessels including World War II war ships and barges were built. Prior to J. R. Manuel's acquisition, this property and the surrounding area were overrun by countless homeless people, drug addicts, and criminals. Today, as a direct result of J. R. Manuel's individual efforts, this San Francisco landmark has been reclaimed and the surrounding streets are free of homeless people, drug addicts, and criminals. Residents and business owners alike now enjoy the new found safety and renewal of the neighborhood. J.R. Manuel is available for interviews and appearances and would like an opportunity to speak with you and your staff. Linda Stockdale Brewer |