The Dark Side of SF Rec & Park

[sfrecparkdept]

SF Rec & Park's Incompetence Leads to Closure of Dog Park

Found this sad story on Facebook...

"Upper Douglass Dog Park Update, Jim Collins, Chairperson Friends of Upper Douglass Dog Park (FUDDP).I know this is a long post but if you care about this special park please read the entire post. Read it twice! This is important information you need to know. Upper Douglass Dog Park has been closed since the rains of mid-December. FUDDP has been asking RPD about the status of the park and it's future. They invited us to what turned into a rather unproductive meeting but with some answers. The news is not good.

Before we get to that we'd like to offer a quick overview of who we are at FUDDP, and what we do. We are the Friends of Upper Douglass Dog Park (FUDDP), a 501C3 established specifically for the purpose of advocating for Upper Douglass Dog Park. Our single objective is to be good stewards of the park for current park goers, park neighbors, and future generations of park users. Our steering committee is comprised of 8 people: 4 women, 4 men, 3 neighbors living within a block of the park, and 2 professional dog walkers. We all use Upper Douglass regularly. We are volunteers. Our charter allows us to raise money to be used specifically for the dog park, as well as apply for grants that benefit the park. Any and all money we raise is deposited with our sponsor, the SF Parks Alliance, and can only be spent with their explicit approval. We have, in the past, raised money for specific improvements, which can only be implemented by RPD or their approved contractors and with RPD direction and oversight. In 2008 we raised money to install the water fountain. In 2010 we raised money to install the front gate. We do not set policy for the park, make decisions about renovations or restoration, or maintain the park. These things are the responsibility of RPD. We do offer RPD and the community our observations and advice, raise concerns around issues regarding the park, and try to advocate with RPD to remediate problems. We also pull weeds and pick up a lot of dog poop.

Since 2010, the clearest challenges facing the park have been the poor drainage and overuse, contributing to the repeated failure of the turf. In an effort to help remediate the drainage and turf issues, in 2013 we contributed $17,000 in community matching funds to a Community Opportunity Fund grant to address these issues. RPD spent 18 months, and over $500,000 working on the field. Before and during the renovation FUDDP repeatedly offered RPD expert advice and observations regarding drainage and the turf, and strategies for managing the overuse of the field. (including the suggestion to open the gate for a few hours each day). While RPD did take these comments and suggestions “under advisement”, at the end of the day, none of them were implemented None the less, we were hopeful that the new field would be a success, and that we’d all get our park back, with some plan to manage the expected heavy traffic.Sadly, as we can all see, the park has failed in 90 days of use. The new drainage system is clearly not capable of handling thousands of gallons of rainwater (in a typical SF winter storm) that all is forced through a single six inch bottleneck pipe at the front gate. The field, if anything, drains more poorly now than prior to the renovation, and the saturated ground can no longer hold the roots of many of the old trees, causing some to topple (in December the two largest trees in the park both toppled over roots and all). In the brief time the park was open, traffic was greater than it ever had been, with no plan from RPD to mitigate the heavy use. The park opened on July 29. In less than two weeks the new "high traffic" bermuda grass blend was covered with brown spots from dog urine. By mid-October much of the turf was severely damaged, the southwest side of the field was again a bog, mosquitos were breeding apace in the new drainage system catch basins full of standing water, and the fountain drain was plugged creating a mud hole around the fountain. Repeated calls to RPD and 311 to address these issues were largely ignored. RPD decided to close the park indefinitely in December after one heavy rain of less than two inch total rainfall.

Frustrated with lack of any meaningful information from RPD, the FUDDP steering committee met in early January. In that meeting, we voted to request that RPD return the funds FUDDP contributed to the renovation project. Our position was and remains that the project was poorly designed, poorly implemented, poorly maintained, poorly managed, and RPD ignored advice from us and other experts about both the drainage and the over use of the field, with the net result being an unusable resource for the community, and close to a million park bond money squandered.The request for the return of FUDDP money was the incentive RPD needed to actually get in touch with us and finally schedule the community meeting we had been calling for. We did receive a letter back from Phil Ginsburg, RPD General Manager ([email protected]), declining our request to return the $17,000 we contributed to the project. In the letter he states that RPD views the new drainage system as a great success. More disturbingly, he outlined RPD’s new strategy for managing the park over use going forward.“we will be closing the park for an annual maintenance period from the Monday after Thanksgiving to March 15 in order to protect the investment as well as to ensure that the soil and turf are prepared for the heavy traffic and longer days in spring “

Shortly after receiving our letter, RPD announced the upcoming community meeting (February 19, 6:30 pm Thursday, Upper Noe Rec Center) and offered FUDDP an onsite meeting at the park to “address some of our concerns”. On February 12th we met with Marianne Bertuccelli, Park Services Manager for the district that includes Upper Douglass ([email protected]) and Marien Coss, RPD Capital Improvement Division, project manager for the Upper Douglass project ([email protected]).Sadly, the meeting did little to answer any of our questions or address our concerns. When asked directly if RPD viewed the new drainage system as a success, neither representative would give us a straight answer, instead lecturing us on the history of the field, and SF rainfall. When asked about plans to take down the dangerous trees, the park manager said the issue was “before her time”. That was in fact her consistent answer to most of our questions. When asked about the plans to close the park for 4 months per year neither representative could tell us who made the decision, or if it was final. After an hour of fruitless Q&A, we left with no new answers and a deep concern for the future of Upper Douglass dog park.It seems that RPD, by their own admission, has no plans to remediate the failed new drainage system. They, in fact, do not see it as a failure. They did acknowledge that the main drain to the city sewer was small but blamed that on SFPUC/DPW requirements to limit rainwater in the city sewer system. This was the first we had ever heard this fundamental project design flaw A) acknowledged and B) blamed on the SFPUC/DPW)! They’ve also decided that rather than open the front gates periodically, they’ll simply close the dog park for one third of the year to allow the turf to rest. Needless to say, we are profoundly disappointed by these decisions, and plan to protest them vigorously at Thursday’s meeting.If you have questions, concerns or fresh ideas about the restoration, management, or closures at Upper Douglass Dog Park, we strongly encourage you to attend Thursday night’s meeting and pose them to RPD representatives. Again, the community meeting, sponsored by RPD and Supervisor Scott Wiener is Thursday February 19, 6:30 pm at the Upper Noe Rec Center at 30th and Day streets in Noe Valley."

[sfrecparkdept]

SF Rec & Park's Violent Approach to the HANC Eviction

I know little about HANC (they ran a community garden?) but they were evicted and mistreated by SF Recreation and Park Department. You'd think that SF Rec & Park would be kind tree huggers but they keep proving the contrary.

An excerpt from:

http://kezargardens.com/tag/phil-ginsburg/

"On January 7th, Rec and Park began to take control of the space.  They feebly offered twenty minutes to supporters to remove their greenhouse, then locked them out.  Afraid of the greenhouse being destroyed, some folks ventured back on scene to remove organic and native plants and protect the greenhouse from destruction.  It was not dark.  Park Rangers had the authority and ability to ticket the individuals as is customary in these situations.   Instead, SFPD was immediately called to the scene to take the people down with force and violence.  Captain Corrales of Park Police station came down himself and was the first officer to initiate violence by lunging at a man harvesting plants.  He proceeded to direct his men to break glass, tear apart the greenhouse and drag out the peaceful house sitters to be arrested.

HANC makes a peaceful end to decades long public service and Rec Park takes a violent approach in starting their community garden."

[sfrecparkdept]

SF Rec & Park Caught Killing Endangered Frogs at Sharp Park Golf Course

"Conservation groups asked for a court order on Friday that will hold the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department accountable for illegal activities at Sharp Park Golf Course, just weeks after the Department was caught killing threatened California red-legged frogs there for a second year in a row. The recent killings were extensively documented by San Francisco State University biology students over several weeks of observation during this year’s short, exceptionally dry winter frog-breeding season." 

"This is the sixth winter over the past decade the Department has killed protected frogs by draining Sharp Park’s wetlands in a failed attempt to prevent frogs from breeding in their historic ponds."

Read the full story: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2012/sharp-park-03-05-2012.html

[sfrecparkdept]

RPD Mishandles Harding Park Contract

Here are some excerpts from a Westside Observer story about Harding Park. It shows that SF Rec & Park lied and deceived the public AGAIN.

"The Recreation and Park Department’s (RPD) mishandling of golf money—misleading the public about Harding’s future, then making a bad deal for the city with a long-term contract—concludes RPD’s decade of deception.

THE DEAL Ten years ago an arrangement fell apart to have a private golf company provide the money to renovate Harding and Fleming golf courses. Subsequently, RPD, golfers, well-intentioned citizens, and politicians crafted a covenant and financing plan to refurbish both courses. The “Guiding Principles” for Harding’s future approved by the Recreation and Park Commission silenced the critics.

The clincher was the city’s “foolproof” self-financing plan: borrow money and repay it from future golf revenue. The “Golf Fund Ordinance” passed, requiring RPD to control all golf revenues and to use that money according to the new law’s clear list of spending priorities through a special city account. 

RPD decided NOT to implement the city law protecting the Golf Fund money so it could take what it needed to rebuild Harding. Since RPD’s initial abuse of the Fund, it has continued to ignore the law’s inconvenient management requirements. Next, they claimed that “golf does not make money,” and manipulated the General Fund for subsidies to balance the budget! Recently, RPD decided it “must” create new fees to backfill that hole, ergo charging to enter Strybing Arboretum.

RPD was supposed to manage the Golf Fund to allow for repayment of a portion of construction capital into the Open Space Fund. It was agreed that $18 million ($15 million of State bond funds and $3 million from Open Space) would be borrowed for the project to be repaid with interest. Never mind that the State money was intended to support projects in the “most heavily populated and most economically disadvantaged areas” of the city, it was used instead to pay for the Harding golf project. RPD promised to use the repaid loan money for the original State-specified purposes to benefit the less fortunate, but RPD never did so. Instead this year, they raided this special reserve fund to hand $1 million to the Mayor to offset the deficit.

THE GIVE-AWAY In 2002 the city agreed to bring PGA Championship tournaments to the renewed Harding Park. At the time RPD emphatically stated “the PGA TOUR Championship is a means, not an end” and “the PGA TOUR has never suggested or offered to take over control of the Harding-Fleming golf complex.” But now RPD has invited them to take over managing the $8 million gross revenue Harding golf course by selecting the PGA TOUR as the winner of a contract bid.

RPD has awarded a sweetheart agreement to PGA TOUR Golf Course Properties, Inc. with lucrative incentive payments based on golf revenue. These payments are in violation of the priorities of the Golf Fund Ordinance. It commits the city to daily standards of grounds maintenance the PGA TOUR has yet to define, and the Golf Fund must finance them or suffer the consequences. There are many loopholes and conditions that benefit the contractor to the city’s detriment. The fox is now officially in charge of the chicken coop.

Real accountability in the contract is nonexistent, since the Recreation and Park Commission is noticeably absent from approving key financial decisions, as required by law. It is not even clear who the contractor is, since the PGA TOUR can hand over this Management Agreement to any of its “affiliates” with the mere consent of the General Manager or his designee."

[sfrecparkdept]

Committee Against Park Mismanagement Exists

I came across an organization called the Committee Against Park Mismanagement. They opposed Proposition B, a bond measure for SF parks.

In opposing Prop. B, they wrote the following: "For 15 years, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department has been ranked by national surveys as one of the 5 best funded Recreation and Park Departments in the country – yet they are routinely unable to perform basic maintenance and gardening tasks other departments throughout the country perform as a matter of course.The fact that this has gone on for 15 years indicates that there is a deep- seated culture of incompetence in the Department which must be rooted out.  For 15 years, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department has demonstrated total contempt for the express wishes, concerns, and opinions of San Francisco citizens, whether by routinely ignoring majority sentiment in hearings, written comments, and ballot measures, or by using staff time and department resources for political organizing to manipulate public sentiment.The fact that this has gone on for 15 years indicates that the Department has a deep-seated culture of contempt for the public, and for the very concept of accountability, which must be rooted out.  The Department will not be accountable until the voters hold it accountable. Accountability begins with a NO vote on this Bond Issue."

My dealings with Rec & Park make me a firm believer in CAPM's argument. Basic questions go unanswered by Rec & Park and they're more likely to ignore phone calls and emails from community members than respond to them. Trails are built but not maintained. They claim to care about community input but only because that's what they're supposed to say. Their actions show that they do not listen or care. 

[sfrecparkdept]

SF Forest Alliance Critique of SF Rec & Park

"We seek transparency from RPD – Glen Park citizens deserve a say on important changes within our community. Without clear and honest communication from government, our citizens are deprived of their opportunity to decide how their taxes are spent.

• If the citizens of Glen Park are properly informed and truly want their taxes spent to remove 300+ trees from their park, the SFFA will stand aside.

One of the key problems with the Recreation and Parks Department is that they do not provide all of their plans from a holistic viewpoint by park, and they operate with a total lack of transparency regarding controversial objectives such as extensive tree removal. The SFFA has had to piece together the true deforestation that is taking place in multiple plans overseen by various groups within RPD that when put together identifies 300-500 trees for destruction at Glen Canyon. The reasons and rationale vary and criteria for tree removal has changed over several years, yet the majority of these trees are NOT dangerous or in severe decline. How do we know? The SFFA was forced to use the “Sunshine Act” (a version of the freedom of information act) to make RPD reveal two tree assessment reports and the contract bid for the Rec Center work. The SFFA mapped the trees in the bid contract papers to the tree assessment report. In fact, only 1 tree among 70 associated with the Glen Park Rec Center project has been assessed as “hazardous.”

SFFA members have been involved in the community process and attended every work shop, and meeting for Glen Canyon over the past two years. RPD repeatedly communicated only a “handful of trees” would need to be removed and then at the last stage the removal was increased to 70. Indeed, RPD has identified only 10 trees that require removal due to the relocation of the tennis courts. Yet on Sept. 14 more than 30 notices appeared on trees slated to be cut down, and RPD told us about 70 will be removed – and has so far refused to provide us a list. Most of the trees listed in the contracts and documents available have no proximity to the tennis courts or construction site. The notices on these trees state safety seasons. In fact, most of these trees are merely classified by RPD as “poor suitability” – a hodgepodge of reasons including “non-native” in their criteria for removal."

SF Rec & Park continues to lie or hide their plans. The community is forced to try to figure out the truth with little cooperation from SF Rec & Park. 

[sfrecparkdept]

Reasons to Vote No on Funding Rec & Park Projects

Most of us like parks...so it's tempting to vote yes for measures that provide funding to San Francisco Parks. Having dealt with Rec & Park, I now have a much better appreciation for the need for accountability. The department is so corrupt that I plan to vote NO on any future funding, until I hear that the department has been reformed.

I found a post from kezargardens.org which talks about why Aaron Peskin, former Board President, urged San Franciscans to vote No on Prop. B, a $1.95 million bond for SF Rec & Park. Proposition B "Save our Parks" was passed.

From kezargardens.org:

"Aaron Peskin, former Board President, and co-author of the last park bond in 2008, says you should think twice before voting for this one.  At a HANC general meeting last week, Peskin spoke passionately and with great candor about the upcoming park bond and about his work to make sure it does not pass.  NO on Prop B, says Peskin.  Look at the centers that lay unused and empty due to mismanagement of funds right now, look at the dire condition of Coit Tower and the need to pass a measure to protect it from further denigration.  Look at the astro-turf policies that will convert grass to plastic at the west end of Golden Gate Park, and the $7 fee for anyone who is not San Franciscan to enjoy the botanical garden and arboretum that has already been paid for.  Look at the proposal to evict our ecology center, Kezar Gardens, built with revenue from green jobs and recycling and replace it with a different one that will cost $1.5 million dollars of the taxpayer’s money, according to most recent reports.

Take another look at the leadership in our Rec and park department and ask yourself if they are really listening to the needs of the community or just a few well-endowed voices.  Let’s clean up Rec and Park before granting them more public money that is spent on private interests."

[sfrecparkdept]

Golden Gate Heights Park Erosion, a Result of NAP Practices

Yet another resident of SF has created a blog about Rec & Park. Nap Rap tells the story of Golden Gate Heights Park where erosion is "a huge problem." 

NAP (Natural Areas Program, a part of SF Rec & Park) "places the blame for erosion upon people, their social trails and access habits.  However, the surrounding neighbors of the park believe that the erosion is being exacerbated by the NAP practice of removing non-native plants and replacing them with native plants. 

The neighbors are right. Native plants are inferior to non-native plants in controlling erosion – as was evidenced by the failure of Natural Areas at Fort Ord, along Great Highway, and at Fort Funston. Ice plant is the proven solution to sandy slopes which must resist erosion. Furthermore, trees are known to prevent erosion. The NAP plan intends to remove 5 trees merely because they are non-native. For these reasons, this plan is in violation of the performance standards established in the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department’s (SFRPD) own Operational Plan. The first mandate is to protect public safety.  Public safety is not protected by implementing an inferior erosion control plan which may threaten the homes of taxpayers surrounding the lake area. 

In public meetings, neighbors have attended and warned the Recreation and Park Commission of the possible liability of the City for damage they expect to suffer. 

We and the neighbors don’t understand how NAP is allowed to proceed with these measures without approval of their plan."

This is another example of how Rec & Park can take action and harm neighborhoods without approval of their plan. 

[sfrecparkdept]

Support San Francisco Forest Alliance

One group that knows the damage that SF Rec & Park can cause is the San Francisco Forest Alliance. Their site does a spectacular job keeping people informed of what SF Rec & Park is up to and raises many issues San Franciscans should be concerned about.

Their mission is to:

"Halt destruction of city park trees and wildlife habitat

Reverse plans that deny public access to trails and natural areas

Eliminate unwarranted toxic pesticide hazards to children, wildlife and the public

Stop misuse of tax revenue and funding within city natural areas."

They offer various ways to support their efforts, including signing an online petition, donating, writing letters, and more.

[sfrecparkdept]

Support Take Back Our Parks

Take Back Our Parks is "an alliance of San Franciscans dedicated to keeping our parks and recreation facilities open and equally accessible to all people." 

Some of their goals include:

"Advocate for the establishment of a process of sufficient notification and opportunity to be heard prior to Recreation and Park Department staff and Recreation and Parks Commission decisions on major policy and projects.

Create a balance of power by changing the appointment of the Recreation and Parks Commission from exclusive mayoral appointments to that of 3-3-1 split appointments (3 by mayor, 3 by BOS, 1 mutually agreed upon).

Provide San Francisco residents, media, and park groups with information and various points of view on park projects and issues.

Work with community groups of varying points of view and seek common ground for unified advocacy or action."

I applaud their commitment to greater transparency, sufficient notification and creating a balance of power at the Rec & Park Commission level. 

You can learn more about the organization and contact them at http://takebackourparks.org/contact

[sfrecparkdept]

SF Gate Summarizes Rec & Park's Flawed Outreach Efforts

This article in SF Gate does a great job summarizing the problem with SF Rec & Park. It highlights how SFRPD's poor communication and outreach are not an aberration. 

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Marina-Green-neighbors-see-red-over-plan-4334752.php

"Virtually every proposal Rec and Park has put forth - from a Blue Bottle Coffee cart at Dolores Park, to synthetic soccer fields at Beach Chalet, to a revamped boathouse at Stow Lake - has followed a distressingly divisive pattern.

Rec and Park oversees many of the city's gems. Projects should be scrutinized, which is why the department needs to do a better job of community education and outreach.

It holds community meetings that are sparsely attended and committee hearings that don't attract much notice. Then - just as the project is about to begin - vehement yowls of protest come from a few neighbors. They complain that they weren't properly notified and that Rec and Park is attempting to pull a fast one.

That's where we are on the Marina now.

Rec and Park did everything that was required. The problem is, not much is required. One Marina resident suggested some of the hue and cry could have been avoided if the department followed a required notification procedure like that of the Planning Department.

Planning requires developers to draft a notice describing a project, with design plans, that is mailed to residents. In addition, all applicable neighborhood groups are notified and a 30-day period is set aside to allow for comment. There's a window for historical review and potential discretionary review.

Now, if Rec and Park followed those guidelines, would it mean everything would go smoothly? Probably not. But it would inoculate the department from charges that somebody was trying to keep this quiet until the last minute.

As it stands now, the process is haphazard. The lightly staffed Rec and Park Department must depend on groups like the Marina Community Association to make its case and get out the information."

The problem is that not much is required. SF allows Rec & Park to operate without informing stakeholders of its plans. The Sunshine Ordinance provides little protection because the public meeting notifications are so minimal.

SF Rec & Park should make a better effort to inform the community even if this is not required. People would be less outraged if they were informed early on and given a chance to provide input.  

[sfrecparkdept]

Why Marina Residents Are Fuming About Proposed Restaurant on Marina Green

Another example of how residents were not notified of SFRPD's plans. Excerpts from the Nob Hill Gazette (April 2013):

"Many in the neighborhood are crying foul over how quickly the Board of Supervisors approved the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department’s plan to build the restaurant at the site of the Green’s old Degaussing Station and disrupt the park-like green overlooking the water, an important piece of the neighborhood’s identity. Residents claim they were never notified of the proposed venture. Neither were the members of the Marina Neighborhood Association or the Marina Civic Improvement and Property Owners Association, we’re told.

According to Nicole Prieto, who has lived in the Marina for 20 years, the whole deal was done on the sly—and the first time she heard about the proposal was last October when a neighbor called her with the news. Her reaction was typical of most: “What? How did it get this far in the game without anyone knowing?”

She continues, “We quickly found out there was a meeting planned at the Audit and Oversight Committee in City Hall, but the deal already had a stamp of approval and exemption from the Planning Department, where [the plans] didn’t need to go through any environmental or traffic congestion studies. A group of neighbors ran down to City Hall and spoke in front of the committee voicing our opposition.”"

[sfrecparkdept]

Something Fishy at Stow Lake Boathouse

SF Rec & Park shows its corrupt side again.

Excerpts from The Sunset Beacon:

"Earlier this year, Dumont, who describes herself as "a frequent walker at Stow Lake, long time San Franciscan and an unlicensed historic preservationist," claimed that the Save Stow Lake Boathouse Coalition, a group including more than 1,900 individuals, multiple neighborhood groups and the San Francisco Chapter of the Sierra Club, had requested SF Supervisor Eric Mar's help with transparency, fairness and fiscal responsibility in regard to Rec. and Park's Stow Lake Boathouse RFQ.

"We want fairness and transparency in this process. We have been ignored, dismissed and deceived by Rec. and Park and we know they do not have the public's best interests at heart," Dumont said. "We want an EIR. We want community oversight and involvement in the selection ... we cannot know if that is occurring because of the selective secrecy taking place.""

Excerpts from SaveStowLake.org:

"Rec & Park General Manager, Phil Ginsburg negotiated a sweetheart lease to the New Mexico souvenir chain with NO boating experience: Ortega Family Enterprises. Even Ortega offered thousands more in annual rent on two separate public meetings and Ginsburg refused to take more money! Ginsburg claims Rec & Park is broke, "every dollar counts" and that he HAD to lay off 99% of all recreation directors and many gardeners last year. So why did Ginsburg give Ortega such a deep discount on the one and only Stow Lake Boathouse concessions?  AND why has Ginsburg committed to spending our money for capital improvements for Ortega's benefit? The new lease even has the taxpayers paying Ortega's gas, water and electric bills for the next 15-20 years! And Phil Ginsburg continues to hire 125k+ year salary management/public relations people to help him scam the public and privatize our parks!  

Sup. Eric Mar, working closely with Ginsburg, sold out thousands of his constituents and fast tracked the deeply flawed discounted lease to a New Mexico based souvenir chain, with NO boating experience NINE days BEFORE the Rec & Park Commission had voted to approve it! In spite of overwhelming opposition from the community and a lease that gives the New Mexico chain many discounts and is embedded with hidden costs to the taxpayers, Mar SPONSORED this lease, losing millions of dollars for the people of San Francisco and deceiving taxpayers. Mar also arranged to sit in at the Budget & Finance Committee for a mysteriously missing Sup. Jane Kim, so Mar could vote for his own legislation re: the boathouse lease! 

SHAME on Sup. Mar for ignoring your constituents and the clear evidence of wrongdoing at Rec & Park and breaking your campaign promises to safeguard our seniors, our children, wildlife and parks. Our coalition wrote, called you, and met with you to inform you of Rec & Park's misdeeds and you did NOTHING, but help Ginsburg deceive the public. Internal emails reveal that you had very few, if any, calls/letters of support for the Ortega chain... yet YOU insured their lease was approved at the Board. You ignored thousands of calls/emails/visits/faxes from citizens opposed to the Ortega.  The city will lose approx. $2 million JUST in RENT over 20 years, by going with Ortega. In addition: the seriously flawed lease opens the door to Rec & Park spending approximately $1 -$2 million in capital improvements, even when they wrote in the RFQ that they have NO capital funds available for the boathouse."

[sfrecparkdept]

Portola Trail Story in SF Chronicle

Today's (October 16, 2013) SF Chronicle covered the Portola Trail:

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Neighbors-say-S-F-park-dept-on-wrong-trail-4898629.php

Here are some excerpts:

"A new city trail designed to keep bikers and hikers separated from the fast-moving traffic and giant tour buses that roar along Twin Peaks Boulevard is the target of neighbors who complain they were never given a chance to raise their concerns about the path.

Residents along and around Glenview Drive weren't notified when the original meetings about the trail were held in 2011, Linton said, or when the Recreation and Park Commission approved the plan in January 2012. In April of this year, neighbors met with park officials to warn them of their concerns that the trail could increase erosion and drainage problems, as well as affect the safety and privacy of the residents whose homes are near the trail.

But it wasn't until Sept. 24 that the parks department posted on its website a series of long-requested reports on the feasibility of the project, Linton said.

"They issued the reports Tuesday and by the weekend the trail was built," she said. "They already decided they were going to build it and no matter what concerns we had, they weren't going to change the volunteer date."

[sfrecparkdept]

The Fight To Save McLaren Park

Excerpts from the Save McLaren Park website:

"1997   A 24-hole disc golf course is proposed for McLaren Park. At Rec/Park public forums, community members express fierce opposition, causing the SF Disc Golf Club (SFDGC) to withdraw its proposal.  

2002   Rec/Park approves SFDGC’s request for the construction of a 12-hole temporary trial course at Golden Gate Park –the course is built and usage by players begins

2005   After reviewing GG gardeners’ and naturalists’ concerns of environmental damage caused by the sport, the Rec/Park Comm. approves the permanent upgrading of the GG 12-hole course to an 18-hole course and, to the disc golfer’s surprise, grants a bonus 18-hole course for McLaren Park. This decision was not agendized prior to the meeting, nor was there notification of McLaren neighbors.

2010   In March, with a few posted fliers, Rec/Park finally notified the McLaren community of its plans to begin construction of a disc golf course that summer. In response, neighbors formed the group, Save McLaren Park (SMP) and hundreds of concerned angry citizens packed a Rec/Park informational meeting. Later in the year, respected environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, SF Tomorrow, and the California Native Plant Society join our cause as well as many community business and social groups. SMP’s analysis of government documents produces a timeline that convinces Rec/Park Open Space Advisory Comm. (PROSAC) to call for a proper public hearing on the issue. Later, in that same June meeting, Pres. Buell admits the missteps of Rec/Park and calls for a public hearing."

This is another example of SFRPD's failure to notify neighbors. It seems like the fight is still ongoing between the Save McLaren Park group and the SF Disc Golf Club. 

[sfrecparkdept]

SF Rec & Park Found Guilty of Sunshine Ordinance Violations

Excerpts from George Wooding's article, Ethics Commission Failing the Public Again:

"The RPD was unhappy that citizens with differing points of view than RPD’s official policy of park privatization were going to speak at a Commonwealth Club forum. The forum was to discuss Golden Gate Park and was initially titled “Golden Gate Park Under Siege.”

The RPD was so worried about what the panel would say about RPD park privatization policy that they applied immense pressure on the Commonwealth Club to change the panel members, change the topic, add RPD representatives, or cancel the public discussion forum.

Wooding filed a Sunshine records request with the RPD on June 3, 2011 requesting any and all records pertaining to the RPD’s involvement in changing the Commonwealth Club’s forum.  Not surprisingly, the RPD told Wooding that no such documents existed.  What the RPD did not know, but would soon find out, was that Wooding had copies of many of the documents being requested, since an anonymous source disgusted with the RPD’s behavior had already provided Wooding with the documents being requested.  Wooding sought to obtain them from the horse’s own mouth.

After RPD denied Wooding’s request, he filed a Sunshine complaint.  When the SOTF heard complaint No. 11049, George Wooding v. Recreation and Parks Department, it issued a “Notice and Referral for Willful Failure and Official Misconduct”; the SOFT’s findings are shown below.

“The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (“Task Force”) hereby provides notification of willful failure and official misconduct findings against Phil Ginsburg and Sarah Ballard of the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department for failure to comply with the Order of Determination (“Order”) issued on August 8, 2011 in sunshine complaint No. 11049, George Wooding v. Recreation and Parks Department.”

- See more at: http://www.citireport.com/2013/06/ethics-commission-failing-the-public-again/#sthash.QhH1HWIz.dpuf

[sfrecparkdept]

SF Rec & Park Say They'll Remove 10 Trees in Glen Canyon Park, But Actually Plan to Remove Many More

SF Rec & Park is at it again. This time they told Glen Park that 10 trees would be removed when they actually planned to remove 60 trees. Here are some excerpts from the San Francisco Forest Alliance:

August 16, 2013: "By the time you read this, they may already have posted notices for removal of 31 trees that they say have been assessed as “Hazardous.” The trees can be removed any time from September 16, 2013. If they follow the map above, the hidden trail with the twisty willow trees on the west side of the creek will be a wide path possibly with bicycle access."

June 23, 2013: "There’s a need for transparency. In Phase I, all through the community process, we were told that only about 10 trees would be removed. The project description said the project would be only in the flat recreational area of the Park. Instead, only after the entire community process was over we found out that first, about a third of the project was in the Natural Areas, and second, around 60 trees were being cut down and replaced with native vegetation.

The community deserves to be given accurate information, which was not the case in the first project in Glen Canyon Park."