Welcome to Westside Observer
Sun Shines on Rec & Park Efforts to Curtail Free Speech
By Katherine Howard
In March 2011, community groups organized a Commonwealth Club panel to discuss the impact of two proposed development projects on Golden Gate Park. The panel included moderator Jim Chappell (former Executive Director of SPUR), and panelists Anthea Hartig, Ph.D., (President of Western Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation), Mike Lynes (Conservation Director and General Counsel for Environmental Matters, Golden Gate Audubon Society), George Wooding, (Past President, West of Twin Peaks Central Council), and myself. The Club approved the program, notice went out to the general public, and people started to register for the event.
We were therefore surprised in late April when the panel was modified, by the Club, to include a member of the Recreation and Park Commission. The Recreation and Park Commissioners and Department staff have unlimited time to address the public at Commission meetings and in other government venues, and the addition of this person meant that the amount of time that we had in our own forum would be curtailed. However, in the spirit of cooperation, we accepted this addition. The final May 11th panel program was attended by a cross-section of the public and was very successful.
In June, in an effort to learn more about what had caused the change in panel members, George Wooding filed a Sunshine Request to Rec and Park asking for all Department communications about the program. The Recreation and Park Department denied that there were any documents.
However, Wooding learned from other sources that these e-mails did exist. In these e-mails, Rec and Park employees, a Recreation and Park Commissioner, and a member of a Recreation and Park public-private partnership, attempted to not only discredit the panel members and to influence the content of the panel discussion but also, in one instance, to have the program cancelled. We applaud the Commonwealth Club for upholding the principles of free speech and proceeding with the panel discussion.
The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force heard this complaint on Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 and ruled in favor of Wooding. The Order of Determination found that Rec and Park violated four sections of the Sunshine Ordinance. The Department has been ordered to release the requested records and to appear before the SOTF Compliance Committee on September 13th.
The panel discussion is featured in the August/September 2011 Commonwealth Club magazine. A video of the Commonwealth Club program can be accessed through SF Ocean Edge's website: www.sfoceanedge.org
Katherine Howard, Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance, SF Ocean Edge
September 2011
Un-Muddy the Waters:
Recycled Water Treatment Plant
The Westside Observer article ("Recycled Water No Walk in the Park" 3/11) on the proposed water treatment facility for Golden Gate Park reflects some confusion about the increasing opposition to placing this facility in Golden Gate Park. We would like to respond with additional information, which the authors of that article might not have known.
The Sierra Club, Restore Hetch Hetchy, Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance, and many other environmental and water-conservation organizations agree that this project should not be built in Golden Gate Park. None of these groups is opposing San Francisco building a recycled water treatment plant — their primary concern is that the facility NOT be located on Golden Gate Park's parkland.
This is an industrial building. Not all manufacturing facilities have smoke stacks, but they are nevertheless industrial. The Golden Gate Park Master Plan (Recreation and Park Department, 1998) clearly states that any building in the Park must be used for recreational purposes. We have heard said that, since the recycled water will be used for irrigation, this facility should be considered a recreational building; this is a strange conclusion to draw. If we go down that path of reasoning, we could have an oil refinery in the Park to provide gas for the gardeners' vehicles. The Master Plan is clearly against industrial uses in Golden Gate Park.
A 30 foot wall is not "low profile." The factory buildings are an acre in size, with more land needed for the surrounding, cleared landscape. The control buildings have to be "constructed of CMU with steel framing and no windows." Not exactly an attractive building design. But very attractive to graffiti!
The photo in the article gives the "screened view" of the water treatment facility and shows only trees. But the statement that the factory will be screened from park goers is inaccurate. The "Tree and Large Shrub Assessment Report" (December 2010) lists over 136 trees to be cut down and another 73 trees threatened by construction. The map below shows that 131 trees will be cut down in this area alone. More trees will be removed for the groundwater project and the soccer field project. Most of the trees shown in the SFPUC 'screening' photo (March Observer, Page 3) will be cut down.
It is unlikely that replacement trees will be planted. This area will become a Homeland Security site. The PUC's "Conceptual Engineering Report" (CER, October 2010), details the extensive security requirements. For example, " Visual Surveillance: Landscape design will incorporate the need for the ability of visual openness for security surveillance and reduce potential hiding or hidden locations." We can all imagine that if there is even a rumor of a terrorism attempt, then the area surrounding this facility will be 'hardened.' Signs are required at 50 foot intervals, in multiple languages "consistent with local population" (that should be a challenge for San Francisco!), including a list of appropriate federal state and local laws prohibiting trespassing. What fun to go for a picnic in the park and be greeted with this!
Placing the factory outside of Golden Gate Park will not result in a divided facility. A storage tank and a new pumping station would be added in Golden Gate Park, but that is all.
Yes, the construction yard in Golden Gate Park is a mess now -- but do we allow the area to be industrialized just because it has not been maintained? RPD may claim financial hardship, but it is planning to spend $12 million for a high-end soccer complex just a few feet away. It cost just over $1 million to replant the Polo Field. The $12 million soccer funding could be better spent to repair the Beach Chalet soccer fields with natural grass, replace the construction yard with a meadow, and use the rest of the $12 million for recreation opportunities for children all over the City.
Relocating the recycled water facility site may cost a little more, but it is a fraction of the overall cost for the PUC Water System projects. And what is the value that we put on Golden Gate Park? Our city will only continue to grow and become more dense. That is the very reason for the recycled water treatment plant! As San Francisco grows, Golden Gate Park's parkland will become more and more precious. As Will Rogers said about land, "They ain't making any more of the stuff."
Golden Gate Park must be protected for all San Franciscans today and for future generations. Please contact the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors and the SFPUC -- ask them to protect Golden Gate Park from this industrial project by supporting an alternative site outside of Golden Gate Park.
Katherine Howard, ASLA, member, Steering Committee,
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance.
April 2011
209 More Reasons to Protect Golden Gate Park
The SFPUC met with the public on February 15th and discussed adding five alternative water treatment plant sites to the Environmental Impact Report. All of these sites are outside of Golden Gate Park.
Why is this important? First, let's review the reasons for this industrial facility. San Francisco is mandated by the State to develop alternative sources of drinking water for the future. As a result, the SFPUC is going to build a large water treatment plant somewhere in the western part of San Francisco. This plant will take the secondary output of the Oceanside sewage treatment plant and process it further into what is known as tertiary treated water.
Currently, water from the aquifer under Golden Gate Park is used to irrigate the Park. Once the new water treatment plant is completed, the resulting tertiary treated water will be used to irrigate Golden Gate Park. The water from the aquifer underneath Golden Gate Park will then be pumped out for drinking water for the western part of San Francisco.
Finding another site is important for keeping this 40,000 square foot industrial building out of our parkland. But the massive building is only part of the problem. The construction site takes up four acres. According to a recently released report, the project will result in the removal of 136 trees and the threat of removal or damage to an additional 73 trees. These trees are all located in the western end of Golden Gate Park and are part of the windbreak that protects the rest of the Park from the brisk winds that blow constantly off of the Pacific Ocean.
Way back in the 1870's, Golden Gate Park's surveyor and designer, William Hammond Hall, had to find a way to stabilize the sand dunes, before he could start to establish the green park that San Franciscans know and love today. A combination of native plants and imported seeds helped to get the area stabilized. From those first plantings, and with the application of the abundant manure from the streets of San Francisco, the first topsoil and new plantings were developed; this is the windbreak that now protects all of Golden Gate Park.
The western section has been reforested since that time, partly as a result of the 1980 Golden Gate Park Forestry Management Plan, when many of the current trees were planted. But this new building project will remove many of the trees planted at that time. The Park's windbreak trees must be retained, both for the Park's protection and for the enjoyment of future generations of San Franciscans.
Please talk to your Supervisor and the SFPUC, and encourage them in the search for new locations for this industrial facility outside of Golden Gate Park.
Katherine Howard, ASLA, Landscape Architect, Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance, www.goldengateparkpreservation.org
March 2011
@WestS_Observer 
