Following are letters sent Oct. 9 and 20, 1997 to Diane Wong, reviewer at the S.F. Planning Department by Little Hollywood residents Daniel Macchiarini and Don Bertone concerning a Draft Environmental Impact Report dealing with new construction scheduled at Candlestick Point.

Dear Ms. Wong:

Thank you for sending me documents entitled "Notice of Preparation" outlining the intention of City of S.F. Planning Department to create a DEIR study for the new Forty-Niner stadium/mall project. After reviewing these documents, it is somewhat ambiguous as to how my opinions, as an individual citizen, fit into the process at this point in time. None-the-less, I will put them forward here and trust that they may be useful to you and your department for the DEIR.

First, it would appear that there are several very positive aspects of the proposed project as outlined in the documents you sent me. These include the intersection and signal improvement along Harney Way and Alana/Beatty Roads leading to Candlestick Park/Point as outlined in area #2, Page 6 under "proposed transportation improvements (on-off) site map. If I am reading this correctly, it appears that there will be new stop lights and crosswalks so that Candlestick Point park is "cut off" from access from bicycle or foot (runners/walkers) traffic from the north side of Harney Way for approximately 2 to 4 hours before and after every game. With the construction of the new neighborhood in Executive Park, it will become even more important that safe, well-marked and policed crosswalks with uninterrupted signals bet set up so that the park can be accessed and used at all times.

Further, it would appear that parking for workers who will be doing the actual construction and demolition for the project has been worked out with the shuttles and road improvements as outlined in area #3 of the same map on transportation improvements. This is smart and may be something that is used even after the construction is completed. Seventy-five thousand people going to any event at Candlestick could use another parking lot, particularly one that has a convenient shuttle. Candlestick Point park could also benefit from this as well. Wind surfers, kyakers, pier fishermen and other park users need to get closer with their vehicles so they can on and off-load their recreational equipment. Most fans don't have these needs so park users should have some parking areas which are reserved for them even on "Game Days."

Other aspects of the proposed project seem to present unacceptable features. On page 5 and within the map entitled "Candlestick Point Project" there is a proposed "Ring Road." The east, northeast and southeast sections of this road appear to cut into existing Park lands. If this is so, this is in direct contradiction to promises made by both Carmen Policy and Eddie DeBartolo at three separate community meetings I attended during the campaign to pass propositions D and F. At the time, I personally questioned Mr. Policy on this issue and he not only indicated that "absolutely no existing park land would be taken for the new stadium project" but also that the Forty-Niners were prepared to "foot the cost of" and work with California Park Department to create "improvements" in existing facilities."

Further, the Northeastern one-half of the stadium also appears to be located on park land. It is "shaded" as "area to be acquired" on the same map. If this is so, this is also unacceptable.

Other aspects of the proposed project seem to be very unclear or overlooked. There do not seem to be any provisions for safe bicycle road lanes nor parking of any kind at the mall or around the stadium. I believe that the new stadium and its access roads should be made "bicycle friendly." This means that bike lanes would be clearly designated, marked and, if necessary, separated from auto roads with concrete barriers to assure their safe use and bicycle integrity. Bicycle parking on site at the Stadium Mall would be in areas which were as close as possible to all these facilities, secure, free and in preference to autos and even busses.

All of this is very important because it is unclear from the proposal where 75,000 people are going to park their cars to go to games and "big events" like concerts. Crowds of this size will generate the need for parking at least 25,000 autos. Even now with crowds of 60,000, there are still parking problems caused all the way back a mile or so into my neighborhood in Little Hollywood. It would appear that the mall and the new stadium will take up more areas which are now used for parking. This in turn will put even more pressure on "outlying areas" like my neighborhood.

Lastly, I would request to know when, if any, public hearings will be held during the DEIR or final EIR process. I would like to speak and hear others speak about these issues. I believe that intelligent public dialogue can produce positive solutions.

Thank you,
Dan Macchiarini

Dear Ms. Wong:
We are requesting that this EIR should include a study of traffic patterns that have impacted the Little Hollywood area.

There is currently only one road between Bayshore Boulevard which leads to the San Francisco office development and Candlestick Park.

This two lane road, Blanken Avenue, is already becoming overloaded with traffic from day-to-day use. On a game day, this road becomes gridlocked to the point that it takes almost one half-hour to drive from Executive Park to Bayshore Boulevard.

The only other major street, Tunnel Road, doesn't really go to either Candlestick or S.F. Executive Park. It is constantly used, illegally by 18-wheeled semi and dirt trucks. It is also used by customers and employees alike hauling trash and hazardous waste to the Sanitary Fill Company.

We have signs posted that notify drivers that there is as low as a 3 ton weight limit on that road, all to no avail. The Department of Parking and Traffic and the S.F. Police never enforce traffic laws on this street. The damage caused by these trucks has caused the street to become a "washboard" because the trucks actually move the pavement around. Caltrans has removed the fence along this street because it was continually being hit by trucks. We have requested that it be replaced but they have never responded. We are now stuck with a view of a dilapidated train yard that the fence once blocked.

We have contacted the Planning Department and the Bureau of Building Inspection concerning illegal construction on the 100 block of Tunnel Road to the commercial store there. This street has become permanently gridlocked with these double parked semi trucks along with cars, City vehicles and other regular trucks that use the liquor store and sandwich shop there. Because the City has turned a blind eye to this illegal growth, this main entrance to the neighborhood is now a dangerous, almost impassible street. To date, no City agency contacted has done anything to alleviate this problem. There is now an illegal auto repair shop on that block that parks junk cars in those scarce parking spaces and on the sidewalks for weeks on end with no one from any department doing anything about it.

The intersection at Bayshore Boulevard itself has been listed as one of the most difficult to navigate due to the fact that it was poorly designed for the seven different roads that intersect it. Traffic flows are such that only a few cars can leave Blanken Avenue during a green light. This adds to the congestion. Pedestrians can only cross this intersection if they run fast enough before the lights change.

The City and Caltrans cannot even regulate normal ballgame traffic without closing off the only freeway exit serving the Vis Valley area. This is done for every game long before the traffic starts with no method for alerting motorists before they get to it. We used to have a program where Caltrans would have signs at exits before this one which would at least allow the residents to get off the freeway and take a local street home rather than have to drive halfway downtown to the next available exit and then double back. Residents have to find alternative methods to get home, creating much hardship for them, as ballpark patrons are given ultimate priority to use our scarce roads.

Roads in this area are chronically neglected and traffic enforcement is nonexistent, except for the game days, and even then, only a token effort by traffic control personnel onsite is ever made.

Whenever there is an event at Candlestick, any parking places that were available to the residents are now gone. When legal parking places run out, they simply park illegally in crosswalks, by wheelchair ramps, at fire hydrants and double parking, etc. Whenever we have sought to have DPT or SFPD do something about this, they respond by telling us that they will ticket the residents' cars also. We have been told repeatedly that we should accept the parking because it is only temporary and it will only end up costing us in parking fines if they come out here. We had a form of residential parking permits in the past that allowed the police to determine who was a resident and who was just going to the game. This program worked but was stopped by the department because it was too informal.

We feel that all parties involved need to make sure that there are sufficient funds to deal with these and other traffic problems that will arise due to the Candlestick expansion. In the past, committees were set up to start dealing with ballgame traffic, but were soon abandoned after it became apparent that these were only to meet a requirement of building but never had any intention to really deal with the traffic problems. There should be adequate funding to allow the surrounding community to have real input that will be acted on. All to often, a developer gets their project, and then leaves the traffic mess up to someone else to straighten out. More often that not, it becomes a permanent problem. Before anything gets approved, a traffic plan should be created and presented to the community for approval.

Don Bertone
Little Hollywood Association

Following is a letter sent Oct. 22, 1997 from Ralph Oroquita of the Little Hollywood Committee to Hillary Gitelman, environmental review officer and Diane Wong, reviewer at the S.F. Planning Department concerning Candlestick Point DEIR.

Dear Ms. Gitelman and Ms. Wong:
I am writing to recommend that the EIR include some of the concerns of the residents of the Little Hollywood and Visitacion Valley communities.

The cumulative environmental impacts from the proposed Mills Mall at Candlestick Park must also be estimated and included. A large portion od Candlestick Park traffic drives through, parks within, and creates traffic congestion within our communities. A very large parking problem already involves our communities and will increase during construction, events and football games at Candlestick. There will also be a large increase in the tailgate parties at the Little Hollywood Community Park.

The Little Hollywood streets are a major thoroughfare for vehicle and foot traffic into the stadium. There will be an increase in graffiti on fences and homes, and vandalism to homes and autos within the community by people that are going to or coming from the stadium or proposed mall. There will be a need for increased emergency services.

A response time study will also be necessary because of the excessive traffic and the loss of level of service. Excessive traffic into and out of our communities will interfere with the response of emergency vehicles, such as fire fighting equipment, police, hazardous waste containment equipment, and ambulances. There will be an increase in auto accidents and toxic air contaminants and emissions. Earthquakes and the possible damage and destruction must also be considered as a potential increase in the response time for emergency services during peak traffic in our communities.

The information of the traffic patterns that are generated by the new Giants stadium, the Cow Palace, and other events must also be included in the EIR. Southbound traffic from the Giants stadium events and the proposed University of California complex at Mission Bay will add traffic on Highways 101 and 280.

The increase in the amount of vehicle traffic and toxic air emissions when the major expansion of the San Francisco International Airport is completed should be compiled for the EIR. The late summer, fall and winter fly-over pattern puts air traffic directly over our communities.

Additional traffic and other impacts may be generated from the proposed construction of 500 housing units at Executive Park, 100 housing units at the Geneva Towers replacement site, 100 senior housing units at the John King Center site, 100 housing units at the Britton Street site, and 42 housing units at the Hester Avenue site. There may be a modified expansion plan for the Norcal/Sanitary Fill Company garbage transfer facility, recycling facilities and hazardous waste facility at Tunnel and Beatty Avenues. The cumulative impacts from existing and proposed developments from Brisbane, northeast Daly City, Visitacion Valley and Little Hollywood should be part of the EIR.

The traffic, toxic air emissions, noise level, roadways, level of service, emergency vehicle response time, earthquake consequences, additional emergency services, soil contamination at the site, additional water, sewer and electrical services that will be needed. Information should be extrapolated from (1) Mission Bay EIR (86.505E certified August 1990); (2) Brisbane General Plan; (3) San Francisco International Airport Master Plan EIR (86.638E certified May 28, 1992); (4) Sanitary Fill Company Recycling and Solid Waste Plan (89.567E draft EIR published February 24, 1995); (5) Port of San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan (94.155E certified December 19, 1996); and (6) Executive Park Development Plan (81.197 RSDE EIR).
The Geneva extension roadway between Bayshore Boulevard and Highway 101 has been proposed for over 30 years and is more od a myth than a reality. Caltrans will have an extremely difficult time getting the funds to build the 30-foot-high elevated overpass to carry a large volume of traffic over the Caltrain railroad tracks.

The proposed Third Street light rail system, as a proposal, has been around for about 25 years. It seems that it may be routed into the proposed stadium and Mills Mall. Building the light rail extension south into Visitacion Valley decreases the chances that this southern-most extension will ever be built.

The mitigation measures will offset the decrease in the tranquility and quality of life of the Little Hollywood and Visitacion Valley communities. The economic benefit that was the magic carrot to have the first stadium built has never materialized in the past 30 years.

The communities within Visitacion Valley, including Little Hollywood, would like more information on the stadium, Mills Mall and any other proposed development that will have a substantial and long term impact on our homes and businesses. Please add our names to any mailing list of hearings or public forums concerning this development. The toxic soil and ground water contaminants that will be exposed during construction should be studied and mapped to allow plenty of time for remediation. Delaying remediation of toxic contaminants until it is too late is a disservice to the City of San Francisco and to the people of San Francisco.
Thank you for your time,
Ralph Oroquita

Patrol Special Officers

Following is a letter sent Oct. 12, 1997 to the S.F. Board of Supervisors concerning patrol special officers.

Re: Patrol Special Officers

Apparently Chief Lau has requested that the proposal before the Police Commission, to expand the duties and responsibilities of the Patrol Special Officers, be held over for 60 days. We sincerely hope that the Chief will use this time to seriously consider the ramifications of an action such as is being put forth.

Let us repeat that, first and foremost, Patrol Special Officers are not sworn peace officers. They do not have the training that San Francisco police officers have. Not even all Patrol Special Officers have the same amount of training. The City of San Francisco has no jurisdiction over their actions yet bears the liability for any legal actions brought against them. Patrol Special beat owners are not under contract to the City and therefore are not obligated to adhere to any of the affirmative action or domestic partners rulings that apply to contractors.
]
With all due respect, Patrol Special Officers are probably the best of all private security officers in San Francisco. They are, however, privately contracted by merchants and organizations to patrol private property. In a document presented to the S.F.Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Patrol Special "Police" Officer's Association claims that the City can save almost $9 million dollars per year by allowing them to volunteer to supplement the SFPD. This is a misleading offer. Someone has to pay for the services of these people. That someone is the merchants and organizations who have contracted with the Patrol Special Officers, and who rightfully expect that these Patrol Special Officers will dedicate heir security services to the premises they are contracted to serve.

Approval of the proposal to expand the duties and responsibilities of the Patrol Special Officers, in effect, privatizes and deregulates the delivery of police services in San Francisco. Under state law, this is illegal.

Approval of the proposal to expand the duties  and responsibilities of the Patrol Special Officers diminishes the SFPD's ability to carry out the Community Policing programs. This jeopardizes federal funding for community policing projects such as Weed and Seed and other gang and violence prevention moneys. Years of sensitivity and cultural awareness training, and the careful building of police/community relations will go down the drain.

Approval of the proposal to expand the duties and responsibilities of the Patrol Special Officers to include providing police services to Treasure Island removes any control the SFPD may have over the safety and security of the island.

We urge you to carefully look into the effects that approval of the proposal to expand the duties and responsibilities of the Patrol Special Officers will have on the City of San Francisco and join us in support of asking the Police Commission to defeat this proposal.

Ethel Siegel Newlin