Issue 308 ___Will you want to live in San Francisco - tomorrow ___December 2006

Come gossip with our invited guests:
Assemblyman Mark Leno . State Senator Carole Migden . Assemblymember-Elect Fiona Ma . Supervisors Jake McGoldrick , Aaron Peskin, Ross Mirkarimi, Chris Daly, Sean Elsbernd, Bevan Dufty, Tom Ammiano, Sophie Maxwell, Gerardo Sandoval. Supervisor-Elect Ed Jew . District Attorney Kamala Harrris . Public Defender Jeff Adachi . Treasurer Jose Cisneros . Assessor Phil Ting . BART Directors Tom Radulovich, James Fang . SF Muni Director Nathaniel Ford . PUC Manager Susan Leal . Port Director Monique Moyer . Transbay Joint Powers Authority Director Maria Ayerdi . SF Environmental Director Jared Blumenthal . John Holtzclaw, John Rizzo, Becky Evans, Sierra Club . Leah Shahum, SF Bicycle Coalition . Eric Pfuehler, Clean Water Action . Alex Lantsberg, Sustainable Watersheds Alliance . Isabel Wade, Neighborhood Parks Council . Kelly Quirke, Friends of the Urban Forest . Steven Krefting, Presidio Sustainability Project . Charles Chase, SF Architectural Heritage . Judy Berkowitz, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods. Bruce Brugmann, Tim Redmond, San Francisco Bay Guardian.

November Vote Makes Possible
A Better Environment
Environmental decisions made by the nation’s voters in electing members of Congress will move us closer to our goals. It’s time to celebrate at San Francisco Tomorrow’s Annual Holiday Party – and then work harder to protect and improve our urban environment.
In San Francisco, two SFT-endorsed candidates for Supervisor – Chris Daly in District 6 and Sophie Maxwell in District 10 – were re-elected.
Members and other supporters of SFT, along with election victories, make possible our day-by-day fight to:
Expand public transit to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution – a local way to reduce global warming. Speed construction of a new downtown Transbay Transit Terminal to bring all Bay Area transit together for immediate transfers with Caltrain and High Speed Rail – with great economic benefits for the City in bringing more visitors with cash from central and southern California, plus major constructions jobs for rail and thousands of units of new housing.

Protect San Francisco Bay from unnecessary fill to enlarge our airport, as high speed rail takes the place of short in-state airline trips. Give all San Francisco neighborhoods a say in their future, with environmental justice in the City’s decision-making. Rebuild our water and sewage systems in an environmentally sustainable and cost-effective manner. Keep our waterfront open to the public with water-related uses. Protect and improve City parks and keep as much of the Presidio as possible as a national park open to everyone. And more

Time to reopen the Waterfront Plan
On December 12th, the Port Commissioners should hear from the public that the latest Pier 27-31 development scheme is unacceptable and that it is time to follow through with a plan that we can all support.
The Port of San Francisco has taken some important steps in the past few years to rid themselves of the free-for-all development mania that gripped it during the Brown years. The last vestige of Mayor Brown’s administration is the most recent development proposal for Piers 27-31 on the Northern Waterfront. On December 12th, the Port Commission will review this proposal which seeks almost 80% of the piers for office use with a large amount of automobile parking crammed onto the site.

Early in the Brown administration, this site was earmarked for a recreational development in the manner of Chelsea Piers in New York City. To achieve this, Port staff and commission relocated the maritime uses on Pier 27 and in 1998 declared the piers to be “surplus” to maritime use and therefore available for other uses.

The Port next declared this site to be an appropriate location for recreation, and formed the Northeast Waterfront Advisory Group to assist staff in developing its proposal. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in late 2000, and, as expected, Chelsea Piers submitted a proposal for a fully recreational site. Unexpectedly, the Mills Corporation also submitted a proposal for a shopping mall with office and recreation uses. In a master stroke, Mills selected the YMCA as its recreational partner for the project, which generated a large amount of support. And in a truly astonishing move, the Mayor abandoned his long allegiance to Chelsea Piers and used his considerable influence with the Port Commission to swing the vote in favor of the Mills proposal against the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and staff. (As a side note, the two commissioners who voted against the Mills Corporation, Denise McCarthy and Brian McWilliams, were replaced by the Mayor the following year.)

While the Mills proposal improved somewhat over the next several years, the initial controversy tainted its efforts to win over public opinion, and the YMCA’s ability to build and operate their facility became more problematic. Eventually, it became clear that neighborhood opposition would continue. As the cost of the project increased, Mills found a way out, selling their development rights in February of this year to the Shorenstein Development Company.

In late October, the Shorenstein proposal was unveiled. Only a minimal amount of recreational use remained, dwarfed by 400,000 square feet of new office space. Unlike the Ferry Building and the Mills proposal, the offices would not be subservient and hidden on an upper floor, but placed squarely in the public realm, both in the historic piers and in two new buildings located at the ends of Piers 27 and 29, vastly diminishing public access to the Bay. Furthermore, the project envisions parking for up to 450 cars between Piers 27 and 31, covered by a structure to support athletic fields. To get to the parking, the cars would have to cross heavily traveled Herb Caen Way.

According to the developer, the increase in office use is essential because the cost of strengthening the piers has almost doubled, from $75 million to $143 million. Yet this is also the reason given for the tax increment financing, up to $60 million, that the Port is being asked to chip in.

SFT supported the establishment of the Embarcadero Historic District. Despite the fact that office use is permitted to a greater degree in an historic structure in order to raise money for historic renovation, the understanding was that the offices should be placed on upper floors or in other unobtrusive locations, and thus not interfere with public appreciation of the historic structures. With the current Shorenstein proposal, offices would not be a background use, but the primary, up-front use, foreclosing the public’s use of what are public piers.

Perhaps an update of the 1997 Waterfront Land Use Plan. which was meant to be revised every five years, is in order. It’s time to look at the remaining piers on the Northern Waterfront and decide what uses are both appropriate and economically viable. If the Shorenstein project is approved, there will be other proposals for offices and parking up and down the remaining piers.
This time, the State Lands Commission should be included and the Public Trust doctrine discussed from the very beginning. The public should understand what they would be giving up if the Public Trust doctrine is not observed.

The Piers 27-31 RFP should be revised and reissued. The current proposal bears almost no resemblance to the RFP issued in 2000. If the original proposal for primarily recreational use is no longer viable, the RFP should reflect that. Also, the Port must put a sunset clause into their agreements.
The Port took a good first step earlier this year, when it put out a realistic price tag of $1.1 billion for pier restoration. In its rosiest forecast, less than two-thirds of that amount can be scraped together. It’s time to make decisions about what historic resources can be saved and what can’t, and how to finance the structures we want to keep. That decision-making process needs to be open to the public.
Come to the December 12th Port Commission meeting and give the Commissioners a message about the public use of public property. Office use is currently permitted only as an accessory use and it is private use. Office use should not obscure or preempt the historic piers. Maritime use should still be optimized. Public access should be increased and enhanced along the waterfront. This latest proposal for Piers 27-31 would set a bad precedent by proposing almost all office uses and parking.
Next, we want an updated waterfront plan that puts a cap on office space and parking on piers. We want to prevent the privatization of our public piers. We want to increase open space and views of the Bay from the public domain.

THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE
A PARKING SPACE
In Los Angeles, a recent survey revealed that at any given moment 63% of all cars on the freeways are being driven simply because there are no available parking spaces.
Aside from the obvious aesthetic value, one of the main reasons for paving the earth is that once it's paved there will finally be enough parking spaces. Millions of motorists who are now unable to stop their cars will be able to get out of their vehicles, stretch their legs and run like maniacs to the nearest restroom.

A report from San Francisco Nature Education about a field trip in San Francisco Botanic Garden:
On September 3rd (the day after the Nature Walk), there were even more birds in evidence that day, including Warbling Vireo, Pacific Slope Flycatcher, Orange-crowned Warbler, the continuing Western Tanager, and Wilsons and Yellow Warblers. There were also 26 (!) Canada Geese in the main pond. However, the really extraordinary experience I had was a sad one involving the same quail family from the day before. (On Saturday morning, before the bird walk, I saw 3 chicks; by the time the group saw them, there were only two.) That family has been hanging around Cape Province. As I was walking through there on Sunday, I heard quail calling quite frantically. Just then, I saw a Red Shouldered Hawk fly up from the ground with a quail chick in its talons, which accounted for the agitation. However, immediately a juvenile Coopers hawk flew at the adults from the opposite direction, taking advantage of their agitation. The female quail flew right past me with the hawk only inches away as it dove into a bush. The hawk landed on top of the bush and was trying to work its way down. It eventually gave up and flew to a branch just above the male quail, who was still calling to the female. I stuck around for a few more minutes, but couldn't bear to see Nature take its course.

NATURE RULES The quail in the Botanical Garden (Strybing Arboretum) are being very actively targeted by the hawks. There is a steep decline in the quail population at the Presidio this year. Damien Raffa, who is in charge of the quail monitoring project at the Presidio, believes there is a correlation between the increased hawk population in the City and the decreasing quail population.

AUTUMN IS THE TIME TO PLANT
Urban trees provide all kinds of benefits: they soften the hard, concrete edges of the urban environment, provide oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide, and mitigate the noise of traffic. But one of the best reasons to plant trees in the City is to provide habitat and food for our urban fauna. Almost any tree can provide a perch or habitat for birds (and squirrels and chipmunks). But if you really want to attract birds and animals, some trees are standouts.

Native trees are best from this perspective. The coast live oak (lots of these along Stanyan Street on the eastern side of Golden Gate Park) and California buckeye (San Francisco’s finest specimen is at the corner of McAllister and North Willard Streets, near USF) are both San Francisco natives, and have edible nuts that are adapted as a food source for local fauna. If you have a back yard, they’re good choices, but don’t try planting them on the street – as with many native trees, they don’t do well as street trees (they’re adapted to the Bay Area, but not to urban sidewalks).

Of our common street trees, some really stand out as bird favorites. The strawberry tree (also known as Arbutus unedo) develops round, red strawberry-like fruits that are edible to humans, but mealy and unpleasant tasting. (The species name “unedo” comes from the Latin "unem edo," which translates "I eat [only] one”.) The fruit is very attractive to birds, however.

If you want to attract hummingbirds, bottlebrush trees (and their close relative, the New Zealand Christmas tree) are good choices – hummingbirds love their red, nectar-filled red flowers. But probably the best “bird magnets” of all are hawthorn trees. There are several varieties found in San Francisco (the English hawthorn and Washington thorn are the two most common), and they all produce small, hard red fruits that birds adore. Every summer, the hawthorn trees in my neighborhood of Cole Valley attract San Francisco’s wild parrots for just two months, in July and August – right after the hawthorn berries ripen. But it’s not just exotic parrots that love this tree – the city’s native birds love these trees as well.