Miraloma Life Online – March 2013

  • PDF Version – March Miraloma Life
  • MPIC All-Ages Neighborhood Networking Event: March 9, 2 to 4 pm
  • From the President’s Corner
  • The MPIC’s Position on the Plans for Mt. Davidson Forest
  • Preserving or Destroying the Mt. Davidson Forest?
  • Mt. Davidson’s Forest—the Discussion Continues
  • Another SF Forest at Risk?*
  • Summary of MPIC Board Meeting on February 12, 2013
  • Spring Auctions Support Schools!
  • Miraloma Park Crime Report May-Dec. 2012
  • Important Notices from the MPIC

MPIC All-Ages Neighborhood Networking Event: March 9, 2 to 4 pm

Join your neighbors and MPIC Board Members at the MPIC Clubhouse (350 O’shaughnessy Blvd. at Del Vale) for an entertaining and informative networking opportunity. Board members and local experts will staff information tables and free beverages and snacks will be provided.

Presentations will include:
Senior Citizen Resources. Many people want to be able to stay in their homes as they grow older, but this can be difficult to manage unless you are well informed about the resources available to seniors living at home. If you are a senior or know seniors, please come and learn about services that can help you to maintain your independence. We will spotlight information on health organizations that promote safety at home, applying for markedly reduced-cost senior transportation, free home maintenance for low-income seniors, and more.

Safety. An MPIC Board member will present information about crime prevention, and the Neighborhood Emergency Response Team (NERT). We will provide information on obtaining cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training, and other important safety tips .

Home Improvement and Maintenance. Take advantage of this great opportunity to learn about the Miraloma Park Residential Design Guidelines from Cassandra Mettling-Davis, an MPIC Board member who is also an architect and zoning and planning expert. A wealth of experience and knowledge of the design guidelines and city planning and building codes will be yours for the asking. Obtain information about and find resources on home expansion and maintenance issues, including window and garage door replacement.

Parenting Resources. We will feature tips for connecting with other parents and finding child care, classes, conactivities, and other useful and entertaining resources near our neighborhood. A representative from Parents for Public Schools will answer questions about public school enrollment. A separate table with puzzles, books, paper, and crayons will keep children busy while their parents chat.

Please join us for this unique opportunity to meet other parents and gather a variety of valuable information to benefit you and your kids.


From the President’s Corner

by Robert Gee, MPIC President

I’m pleased to announce that I have appointed Daniel Homsey as an interim MPIC Board member. Many of you have met Dan through the annual Bella Vista Way neighborhood block parties that he has helped organize over the years. He brings a wealth of local government experience and knowledge to the Board. Through his work with the San Francisco General Services Agency, he is principally involved with the SF Neighborhood Empowerment Network (NEN). The NEN is a coalition of residents and community organizations, nonprofits, academic institutions, and private and government agencies, whose mission it is to empower residents to build strong resilient  communities. The NEN does this by strategic partnerships to develop programs and resources that neighborhood stakeholders can leverage as they create safe, clean, healthy, inclusive, and economically resilient communities. The NEN is organizationally sponsored by the SF General Services Agency and the Department of Emergency Management.

I want to welcome all new MPIC members who recently joined and offer a big thank-you to the many members who have recently renewed their memberships. Your support is greatly appreciated. Many of you indicated a specific interest when you submitted your MPIC membership application, including safety, disaster preparation, zoning, social events, and traffic. We will contact you shortly to find out how you would like to help further. Perhaps you would consider working on a certain committee or project? The MPIC relies on our all-volunteer Board and neighbors who generously give their time to work on important issues in the community.

One of MPIC’s priorities for 2013 is to increase neighborhood awareness and participation in the discussion of important issues using all appropriate media, as well as to encourage neighbors to meet and watch out for each other. Miraloma Life, published monthly (except in July and August) since the 1940s, is still the MPIC’s principal means of communication—the good old fashion paper method. Many neighbors, especially seniors, rely primarily on the printed newsletter, but our website at www. miralomapark.org, on which the newsletter is also posted, serves the internet-savvy and is a good means of getting out urgent information between newsletters. That’s why we encourage members and neighbors to visit the website and to view, and perhaps post thoughts and concerns to, the MPIC Message Board. The MPIC is also a member of Nextdoor Miraloma, (https://miralomapark.nextdoor.com), a new social and informational site with a growing local membership, which provides a venue to communicate and learn about Miraloma Park and nearby neighborhoods. In addition to posting and responding to comments on the websites, neighbors can participate in discussions of important issues by submitting articles to the newsletter or comments directly to the Board via the traditional routes of phone or letter.

On our recently reorganized main web page (www.miralomapark.org), New Topic Posts to the Message Board appear on the top level. Click on the link to Message Boards on the right side to access a page with list of forums: Crime Alerts, Home and Garden, Lost and Found, Streets and Traffic, Pets and Animals, Local Businesses, and Ideas and Opportunities. Anyone can view the many topics posted on these forums; to post a message yourself, simply register as a Message Board user at the top of the Message Board page. After reading and accepting the rules, input your email address and create a user name. You’ll receive an email with an invitation link to activate your user account. Then you are ready to log in under your user name and respond to a topic or post something new. Only your user name appears in the Message Board. Please let us know how we can make the Message Board experience even better.


The MPIC’s Position on the Plans for Mt. Davidson Forest

by Dan Liberthson

On June 7, 2012, the MPIC submitted a letter of comment to the Environmental Review Officer about the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan (SNRAMP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (draft EIR or DEIR) proposal for Mt. Davidson. The full text of this letter is available on-line at http://tinyurl.com/d2ecqpl and via a link to this site provided on our miralomapark.org website under the heading “News and Notices.” In this letter, we detailed our concerns about the impact of the proposal to remove a large number of trees on wind, forest resources, cultural landscape, erosion, aesthetics, recreation, noise pollution, and wildlife. We requested that these concerns be addressed, and supported adoption of the Maximum Recreation (Maintenance) Alternative proposed in the DEIR, which would stress maintenance and preservation of more trees for recreational purposes than would other options offered by the plan.

We now await issuance of the Planning Commission’s Response to Comments on the Draft EIR for SNRAMP and of the final EIR. These documents are expected this Spring, and we will then need to study them to determine if our concerns have been answered and re-affirm or modify our position to accord with our findings. In the meantime, it has become clear that some in our community hold different views about SNRAMP than those expressed by our letter and by the SF Forest Alliance, which has been prominent in criticizing the DEIR as proposing to cut far too much of the forest. In keeping with the long-standing policy of the Miraloma Life and of the MPIC Board, we favor providing in the newsletter a venue for varied and dissenting views on issues of importance to our neighborhood when articles expressing such views are submitted. Accordingly, our February issue featured an article by Jacquie Proctor and Rupa Bose representing the views of the SF Forest Alliance, many of which the MPIC included in our 2012 letter, but we also printed an article from a different viewpoint by a supporter of SNRAMP, Ruth Gravanis.

We feel it is important that both viewpoints be presented and debated, and so in the following pages we offer another article by Jane Risk of SF Forest Alliance and a response by Ms. Gravanis. In Ms. Risk’s article is an internet address at which the DEIR for SNRAMP can be found, which readers may wish to consult, as both authors base their arguments on and refer to this document. As Miraloma Life editor, I expect to devote more space to this complex and controversial issue in future editions. At present, in my own opinion, it appears that both parties in this debate want to preserve Mt. Davidson forest but have differing ideas of how to achieve that goal, and of how the DEIR proposes to achieve it, as well as different concepts of the likely scope of effective public input and review of the specific projects to be undertaken on the mountain. Yet, as Ms. Gravanis mentions, there are areas of agreement, and perhaps a greater consensus will emerge.


Preserving or Destroying the Mt. Davidson Forest?

by Jane Risk*

In an article in last month’s Miraloma Life, Ruth Gravanis attempted to reassure us that “The adoption of the proposed Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan (SNRAMP) would facilitate implementation of long-overdue management measures.” The fact is that SNRAMP is NOT a “yet-to-be-developed plan” for managing the Mt. Davidson forest. Rather, it is a carefully documented, detailed plan to eliminate 1600 trees in the 10.2 acre heart of the forest so as to “slowly convert those areas to native scrub and grassland habitats.” (SNRAMP Appendix F-1) The SNRAMP makes no mention of replanting trees to replace those cut. In the 3.5 acres of Management Area 1C, above Juanita Way, the SNRAMP plans to remove 1,000 “invasive” trees. That’s 82.5 % of the trees in that designated area, even though the plan
itself warns that “substantial tree removal in these areas should not occur” because it could increase the rate of windthrow (falling trees). (SNRAMP Appendix F-11)

Ms. Gravanis asserts that the Mt. Davidson forest is in poor condition and is in dire need of management. However, SNRAMP Recommendation GR-15 states that all MA-3 zones, such as the 19-acre forest preservation zone on Mt. Davidson, will be given the “lowest priority” in terms of management. The stated purpose of the SNRAMP is NOT to manage the forest. It is to gradually convert one-third of the forest to native scrub and grassland habitats similar to the “coastal scrub habitats of San Bruno Mountain or the grassland-scrub mosaics of the Marin Headlands.” (SNRAMP 6.2-7)

I am not the only one who is alarmed about the Natural Areas Program (NAP) plans as they are presented in the SNRAMP. On June 4, 2012, the twenty neighborhood organizations comprising the West of Twin Peaks Central Council (WTPCC) said in a letter to the SF Recreation and Parks Commission (RPD): “NAP has expanded far beyond its original mandate to protect and preserve remnants of San Francisco’s natural heritage, into large-scale conversion of existing habitat into something completely different, conversions that will change the character and uses of the park for decades to come.”

Ruth Gravanis mentions none of the other major drawbacks of the SNRAMP, including repeated applications of herbicides so that non-native trees and grasses “will not be allowed to establish.” (SNRAMP 6.2–8); habitat destruction; increased erosion from the loss of trees; increased water runoff; increased wind and windthrow; restricted park access; and a negative impact on carbon sequestration and global warming. She goes on to assure us that “there will be numerous opportunities for the public to help shape the management actions eventually implemented.” Unfortunately, experience has proved otherwise.

Time after time, we have attended meetings at which RPD gives a lengthy video presentation to explain their plans. Then a few members of the public are allowed to voice their concerns and raise objections. But it’s all a farce. Not once has the Department altered their plans based on public input. Furthermore, they have hired HORT Science to determine which trees to keep and which to eliminate. The public has no voice in this decision.

Developments in Glen Park Canyon have been a wakeup call for us. More than 3,000 people signed an SF Forest Alliance petition to save the 42 trees at the entrance to the Canyon, trees that though not hazardous and not in the way of the playground construction project were tagged by HORT Science as having “poor suitability.” On Jan. 7, Recreation and Parks held a meeting to inform the public of its tree-cutting plans. Almost everyone who spoke up at that meeting objected to the proposed tree-cutting. On Jan. 10, the bulldozers moved in. All the stately eucalyptus trees along the entry way have now been removed. The hillside on Elk Street was clear-cut. RPD promises to plant 163 new saplings, but most of the species are shrubs, and the trees will not grow as tall as the ones destroyed. Moreover, RPD admits that it only has funding to monitor those saplings for the next 2 years.

In the words of the WTPCC: “NAP has done an extremely poor job of informing people, including park neighbors, of its plans. Those plans were created without seeking input from park neighbors and park users … Established neighborhood associations, including many WTPCC members, have not been contacted by NAP. Many have said they never heard anything about the DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report). Indeed, the Planning Department offered a tacit acknowledgement of this lack of public outreach when it re-opened public comment on the Draft EIR.”

The Planning Commission’s Response to Comments on the Draft EIR is expected in late May, 2013. After review by the Environmental Review Officer, the Planning Commission will meet and decide to certify or not certify the SNRAMP. That meeting will probably take place on June 13 or June 20. For up-to-date information, please check the SF Forest Alliance website, sfforest.net. Please email your comments to Planning Commission President Fong at planning@rodneyfong.com.

Please Note: The SNRAMP document can be downloaded or viewed online at http://sfrecpark.org/parksopen-spaces/natural-areas-program/significant-naturalresource-areas-management-plan/snramp/ You can find information specific to Mt. Davidson in Chapter 6.2 (19 pages, complete with tables and maps) and Appendix F.

*Jane Risk is a retired SFUSD teacher and Sierra Club National Outings leader and a long-time Miraloma Park resident who enjoys hiking with friends and family in the Mt. Davidson forest.


Mt. Davidson’s Forest—the Discussion Continues

by Ruth Gravanis

I appreciate the opportunity to dialog about Mount Davidson Natural Area in this newsletter. Although the venue doesn’t allow for the in-depth exchanges the topic deserves, I want to respond below, insofar as space allows, to the important questions and concerns raised in the preceding article by Jane Risk.

Replacement trees are discussed in the DEIR under “Tree Removal and Replacement.” Invasive trees removed in San Francisco would be replaced with native tree species at a ratio of roughly one-to-one, although not necessarily at the same location or within the same Natural Area. The SFRPD would take into consideration the views from Natural Areas when locations are being selected for new trees. Locations of replacement trees in San Francisco Natural Areas would be selected to preserve views from important points. (Chapter III.E.5 (P. 92) of SNRAMP DEIR)

According to the SNRAMP (page 1), the purpose is to protect and manage the Natural Areas for the natural and human values they provide. The mission is to preserve, restore, and enhance remnant Natural Ares and promote environmental stewardship of these areas. This mission is consistent with the guidelines outlined in Policy 2.13 of the City’s General Plan.

Pages 6.2-7 of the SNRAMP state that creation of a stable boundary between the urban forest and the open grasslands of Mount Davidson will allow restoration of grassland and scrub habitats so they may be compared to similar habitats at the Marin Headlands, although the grassland habitat at Mount Davidson will never be as expansive. There is nothing in this section about converting forest to grassland and scrub. Many of the proposed site improvements listed, e.g., “restoration of native grasslands within the existing scrub and grasslands areas,” have nothing to do with the forested parts of Mt. Davidson, but rather with its species-rich open areas.

While it is true that Appendix F says that the long-term goal of urban forest management in MA-1 and MA-2 areas, city wide, is “to slowly convert those areas to native scrub and grassland habitats or oak woodlands,” the document also says that “It is anticipated that in most cases this conversion will take significantly longer than the life of this plan (20 years).” Also, “Most of Mt. Davidson will still support an urban forest even when tree removals are complete.”  (Appendix F-8)

Whether or not such a conversion ever occurs on Mt. Davidson, it is essential in the meantime to manage these areas for tree health and habitat value. One important management methods is thinning. Appendix F-3 includes an explanation of what thinning is and is not.

Regarding windthrow, please see the discussion on Appendix F-11 & 12, which concludes, specifically for Mt. Davidson: “Some windthrow is likely to occur naturally within the stand and its edges. It is not expected that the removal of trees from Mt. Davidson will substantially alter the windthrow rates.”

As to erosion control, please see Appendix F-4. The roots of trees are not nearly as effective in holding soil as are the roots of many other plant forms.

Regarding the fear of habitat destruction: wildlife experts, including the Audubon Society, say it’s the grassland and scrub areas and the edge between forest and grassland that support the greatest wildlife diversity. Thus, it would be expected that thinning of the forest interior will increase habitat value.

Some claim that closing social trails will reduce public access, but in fact the trails to be eliminated are mostly vertical, erosion-prone cuts that are difficult for many people to use. The plan calls for trail improvements that will in fact increase public access and enjoyment and reduce trail maintenance costs.

About carbon sequestration, there’s a whole section in the DEIR, which says in part: Trees removed in the Natural Areas in SF would be replaced at a one-to-one ratio, although not necessarily in the same location. Eucalyptus trees would be replaced with native trees. Although the net effect on carbon sequestration capacity is unknown for the proposed replacement of mature eucalyptus with native saplings, replacing dying trees with healthy trees typically enhances the carbon sequestration process. In fact, one urban forest management strategy to help improve air quality is to increase the number of healthy trees.

Further, among mitigation measures recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is forest management, and particularly selection of tree species that sequester the most carbon. As such, tree replacement is expected to result in a net increase in the amount of carbon sequestered within the Natural Areas. The total number of trees would not change within the Natural Areas of SF and the amount of carbon sequestered would increase in the long term due to replacing dead, dying, or diseased trees. According to the California Registry, dead trees must be replaced within one year of removal. This timeframe allows for planting to occur at the appropriate time of the year. Therefore, the project would not conflict with San Francisco’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Ordinance.

Further, the project would not conflict with California’s goal of reducing GHG emissions set forth by the timetable established in AB327. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant individual and cumulative impacts from GHG emissions and the associated carbon sequestration impacts. (SNRAMP DEIR, Chapter VI.F.3, pp. 456-7) Also, please note that many scientists believe that trees planted in the temperate zone are more likely to heat the earth than to cool it.

As to the Glen Park Recreation Center project currently underway, it is not under the Natural Areas Program and is not relevant to the SNRAMP.

Ms. Risk’s citing of the low priority given to the management of the MA-3 areas is much appreciated. It’s true that SNRAMP Recommendation GR-15 states that all MA-3 zones, such as the 19-acre forest preservation zone on Mt. Davidson, will be given the “lowest priority” in terms of management. The need to prioritize is based on the expected lack of sufficient funding to do everything at once, but the SNRAMP does not ignore the management needs of the MA-3 zones. Please see Final Draft, SNRAMP, Feb. 2006, Section 5, pages 5-2 to 9-19 for a number of recommendations, including forest regeneration, for the MA-3 areas. It may be a point of agreement that we should all work together on finding more resources (money and volunteers) to assure that these areas are appropriately taken care of, and in a timely manner.

Another point of agreement: the SF RPD does not always communicate with the public as well as it could, and perhaps we can join in demanding more information, holding meetings at times that accommodate more people, providing ways for people to weigh in who can’t come to meetings, and so on. One opportunity to give input is coming up. It behooves us all to take a close look at the “Comments and Responses” document (which will contain responses to comments submitted on the DEIR) as soon as it comes out (according to Jessica Range, City Planning’s contact person for the SNRAMP, no release date has been set) and to submit our comments regarding this document’s accuracy and completeness. And we need to keep in mind that as SNRAMP is a “Program EIR,” not a “Project EIR,” the CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) calls for the subsequent provision of a “more detailed examination of the specific environmental impacts of individual projects in project-specific mitigated negative declarations or EIRs” (Community Guide to CEQA, Planning and Conservation League, Fall ’07, page 9.0). We will all need to keep an eye on RPD and the SF Planning Department to be sure that such reviews are carried out responsibly.

It’s difficult to conduct a useful exchange without looking at what we’re talking about. For a more thorough and  eaningful dialogue on these and other issues, readers are encouraged to attend the Mt. Davidson walk scheduled for the morning of Saturday, March 2. If that walk doesn’t get rained out, then we can use its scheduled “rain date,” March 23, for an additional walk. Please contact Jake Sigg ( jakesigg@earthlink.net ) to reserve your space (and get meeting times and information) for either walk.


Another SF Forest at Risk?*

by Rupa Bose

Mt. Davidson forest is not the only SF forest facing a challenge. UCSF wants to cut down 30,000 trees on Mount Sutro, land that the university designated as an open space reserve more than 35 years ago. Tree-felling could begin as early as Fall 2013.*

About 45,000 trees on Mt. Sutro are in 61 acres that belong to UCSF. With an estimated 740 trees/acre, this is functionally a cloud forest. All summer, it gets moisture from fog, and dense greenery holds moisture in. This lush, beautiful forest provides bird and animal habitat and lovely seclusion from urban sounds and sights.

But UCSF has just published a DEIR for a project to remove over 90% of the trees on three-quarters of their area. Only 15 acres, on the steep western edge of the forest, would remain as they are. Surprisingly, UCSF argues that the forest suffers from “overcompetition” and that removing 90% of the trees will enable the remaining ones to thrive. But an arborist brought in by neighbors found no evidence of ill health of the forest and confirmed that, “As is typical in [cloud] forests, trees are crowded. Branching is high. Understory is deep. Leaves drip. Some trees are mature and mighty with crowns beyond view. Others are rangy, young and low enough to meet eye-levels.” Destroying 90% of these trees will destroy the forest. Tons of carbon will no longer be sequestered. The project will be very costly, and will require intensive use of highly toxic pesticides like Garlon. See details online at SaveSutro.com or SFForest.net. Please help protect Mt. Sutro by:

(1) Writing to the Board of Regents to ask why a public medical institution is engaging in such a controversial, expensive, and environmentally destructive act. Address: Office of the Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents, 1111 Franklin St., 12th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607. Email address: regentsoffice@ucop.edu. Fax: (510) 987-9224.

(2) Submitting a written comment on the DEIR by 5 pm, Mar. 19, 2013 to UCSF Environmental Coordinator Diane Wong at EIR@planning.ucsf.edu, or mailing it to UCSF Campus Planning, Box 0286, San Francisco, CA 94143-0286. Include your full name and address.

(3) Signing a petition to save the forest available online at SaveSutro.com.

*EDITOR’S NOTE: like the Glen Park Recreation Center project mentioned in Jane Risk’s article in this issue, the UCSF proposal is not an NAP project, nor is it part of SNRAMP. UCSF disputes Rupa Bose’s assertions above, claiming that 7.5 Mt. Sutro forest acres were selected to evaluate different land-management techniques, with substantial community involvement, and that there is no plan to cut down 30,000 trees, just thin the forest by removing saplings for its health. For more info, see: ucsf.edu/about/cgr/current-projects/mount-sutroopen-space-reserve/mount-sutro-open-space-reservedocuments and ucsf.edu/about/cgr/current-projects/mount-sutro-open-space-reserve and ucsf.edu/about/cgr/current-projects/mount-sutro-open-space-reserve/mountsutro-open-space-reserve-q. For questions and concerns, contact Damon Lew, Assistant Director of Community Relations, at dlew@cgr.ucsf.edu.


Summary of MPIC Board Meeting on February 12, 2013

by Dan Liberthson and Robert Gee

Presentations:

(1) Chuck Paskerian, Chair of the Council of Armenian American Organizations of Northern California, owners of the Mt. Davidson cross, requested Club support of installation of a permanent secure electric supply to the cross to eliminate noisy and expensive generators required for the annual Easter and April 24 events. Portable light stanchions would be used for two annual events. No other night lighting will be permitted. The cross property is available for private events at no cost. Amplification would have to be approved by the Armenian organization and the City. Users must secure liability insurance. Motion made to write a letter in support of the proposal, mentioning the need to adhere to the restrictions governing lighting and sound amplification.

(2) Jacquie Proctor announced she would no longer be MPIC’s liaison to Recreation and Parks re Mt. Davidson forest plans.

(3) R Gee announced his interim appointment to the Board of Daniel Homsey.

On-Line Vote: 1/19—T Sauvain: Spend $2000 to refinish Clubhouse floor (passed).

Treasurer’s Report (T Sauvain): Current net worth in January increased by $4172.35 from December to $28,022. Rental income was $3695 in January, vs $3795 in December. Membership income was $5048. We spent $192 in Clubhouse repairs (men’s room mirror and fire extinguisher servicing). Current reserve total is $18,000. The audit of the 2012 books has been completed (thanks to Vivienne Antal for her help). Federal and state tax returns were filed. Finances are in excellent shape. Membership dues and advertising revenues cover newsletter costs. Clubhouse rental income helps pay for maintenance and other expenses and provides funds for Club events.

Committees: Traffic and Transportation (K Breslin)—Supervisor Yee mentioned an upcoming hearing on pedestrian safety at the Coalition for SF Neighborhoods meeting. Transportation Effectiveness Project (TEP) changes planned for the 36 Teresita bus line: (1) eliminating a portion of the route in the Forest Knolls area only (the route within Miraloma Park would not change); (2) using minivans instead of buses; and (3) decreasing times between vans from 30 to 20 minutes. Concern was expressed re future route changes in Miraloma Park if minivans used. The Club will submit a comment to SF Metropolitan Transit Authority (SFMTA) on the TEP by the 2/22/2013 deadline, stating that we have no objection to the new plan but would object to route changes in Miraloma Park. Gary Noguera discussed the 10-year old Teresita traffic-calming plan that has stalled. The third phase of the plan was to address the Fowler Y and the fourth phase was traffic calming all along Teresita, including the installation of bulb outs. Club needs to contact Supervisor Yee and Bond Yee of SFMTA to get the program moving again. Safety—Please see crime report in this issue. Membership (R Gee)—Membership increased by 32% during the month of January, 2013, from 401 to 530 members. Annual renewals and a stellar response to the membership reminder letter in the January Miraloma Life accounted for this surge. Thanks to Deb Atkins and Vivienne Antal for helping to deliver 90+ membership reminder letters. Events (S Chu)— March 9 Neighborhood Networking event discussed (see article in this issue). Motion made and passed to budget up to $300 for food, beverages and cleanup costs. Clubhouse Maintenance (C Mettling-Davis)—Estimate by City Hardwood Floors for refinishing Clubhouse floor was $2,900 when stage was included. Motion made and passed to budget an additional $900. New Clubhouse Committee Chair needed.

New Business: R Gee reported on his meeting with Supervisor Norman Yee to brief him on the Club’s goals and accomplishments. Mr. Yee stated that he was taking two tours of Mt. Davidson to hear about the issues from both sides. He’s very concerned about pedestrian safety, including safety along Teresita Blvd. He plans a hearing on this issue and wants people to testify to provide input for City Departments to act on.


Spring Auctions Support Schools!

What could beat an evening of food, drink, entertainment, shopping, and supporting schools in and around Miraloma Park? Spring auction season is upon us. Whether you are looking for an entertaining evening out or to meet parents and teachers from nearby schools as you face the daunting enrollment process, you are bound to enjoy these events. Have a good time and support a good cause!

Miraloma Park Elementary—Sat., Mar. 2, 5:30 pm to midnight at The Verdi Club, 2424 Mariposa St. Tickets: $35 in advance, $50 at the door for drinks, dance music, and small plates. Visit https://miralomasf.schoolauction.net/2012.

JBBP Tomodachi—Auction & 40th Anniversary Celebration, Sat., Mar. 9, 5:30 to 11:00 pm at the Scottish Rite Center. Tickets: $35 in advance, $40 at the door for tray-passed hors d’oeuvres, sushi dinner, dessert, drinks. Visit http://parents.clarendonjbbp.org/?q=node/5

Wind in the Willows Pre-School—Sat., Mar. 16, 2013, 7-11 pm at The Guerrero Gallery, 2700 19th St. Tickets: $35 per adult includes all you can eat Mexican food, dessert, drinks. Contact Lisa Sullivan (Lisabose@gmail.com).

McKinley Elementary—Sat., Apr. 13, 11 am to 4 pm at DogFest in Duboce Park. Auction, fun, games, dog shows, contests, jumpy houses, and more. Contact dogfest@mckinleyschool.org or visit www.sfdogfest.com.

San Francisco Community School—SF Pie Social & Blue Ribbon Competition, Sun., Apr. 14, 11:30 am–2 pm at the Verdi Club, 2424 Mariposa St. Tickets: $15 adults, $5 kids for general entry; $25 in advance to enter the pie competition. Silent auction, live music, fun for kids, prizes, more! Visit www.my-sfcs.org.

Jose Ortega Elementary—”Jose Ortega’s Big Fat Wedding Reception,” Sat., Apr. 27, 6-10 pm at St. Francis Episcopal Church, 399 San Fernando Way. Tickets: $35 for food, open bar or $30 for food, non-alcohol drinks, and music, dancing, auction, and fun! Visit http://joseortega2013.
eventbrite.com.


Miraloma Park Crime Report May-Dec. 2012

Miraloma Park Crime Report (5/2012 - 12/2012)

Miraloma Park Crime Report (5/2012 – 12/2012)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Important Notices from the MPIC

The MPIC has tax exempt status under IRS Code section 501(c)(4). Contributions to 501(c)4 corporations such as the MPIC are not tax deductible. Only charitable contributions to 501(c)(3) corporations are tax deductible, within limits. For further information, please consult your tax advisor.

Section 9.02 of the MPIC Bylaws requires us to notify all dues paying members that they have a right to receive the 2012 financial report pursuant to California Corporations Code 8321(a). The annual report includes a balance sheet, an income statement, and a statement of changes in financial position. If you would like us to send you the 2012 annual report, please submit a written request to the MPIC.