Miraloma Life Online – September 2010

  • Wind Power in Miraloma Park: Installation of a Nascent Technology Challenged
  • Fall Ballot Issues Forum
  • Youth-Related Problems in Miraloma Park
  • Miraloma Elementary School Traffic and Parking Mitigation Plan
  • Co-Existing With Coyotes
  • June 17 MPIC Election Results
  • Summary of Minutes of MPIC Board Meeting of August 5, 2010

Wind Power in Miraloma Park: Installation of a Nascent Technology Challenged

by Dan Liberthson

The Facts

The owner of the house at 400 Teresita Boulevard (corner of Reposa) has applied for a permit to install a 35-foot small wind generator (SWG) tower at 400 Teresita, a 21- foot tall home on a block with homes of similar height. The SWG would be installed four feet from the front wall of the house, and would support a swivel head with three six-foot long rotating blades forming a circle 12 feet in diameter (see picture). The MPIC, supported by many of the nearby neighbors, requested Discretionary Review (DR) of this project on the following bases: (1) the proposed structure would compromise the architectural character of the block-face and would set a precedent for further erosion of neighborhood character; (2) the proposed site for this turbine does not meet manufacturer’s specifications, so the turbine would be inefficient at this site—poor compensation for the significant loss of neighborhood character and visual appeal in this attractive neighborhood; and (3) the proposed SWG would adversely affect quality of life by introducing noise and light/shadow pollution, creating a strobe effect that would be a traffic hazard at the busy intersection of Teresita and Reposa. The MPIC does not oppose wind-generated power, and we look forward to the development of SWGs suited to urban residential sites. But we oppose installation of this particular model because of its unsuitability to the proposed site and to the built environment, an older section of Miraloma Park. Our commitment is to preservation of the architectural heritage of our older neighborhood, as embodied in Proposition M, which gave rise to the practice and requirement of design review and to the publication and mandated use of the City’s Residential Design Guidelines.

Proposed Wind Turbine- 400 Teresita Blvd

400 Teresita Blvd. and Block-Face West: Photo with Proposed Wind Turbine Schematic Shown to Scale.

Manufacturer’s literature for the proposed Skystream 3.7 SWG recommends placement of the unit on at least a one-acre lot, 20 feet higher than the nearest obstruction and 275 feet from the nearest building for maximal power generation. The proposed site is about 2/3 acre, and the installed unit would have a horizontal clearance of 4 feet and a similar vertical clearance. Placement so close to a structure will severely reduce the power delivered. Also, the unit will not deliver more
than about a third of rated power in winds averaging less than 12 mph, and 29 mph winds are required for optimal power production. The SF Urban Wind Power Task Force Report and Recommendations state that “Wind energy experts agree that assessing a site’s wind resource—including wind velocity, pressure, direction and turbulence—is a critical first step in evaluating whether a site is a good candidate for wind.” The owner stated at the Pre-Application meeting that he has made
no measurements of wind at the proposed site; however, a wind turbine engineer and member of the SF Urban Wind Power Task Force, Todd Pelman, advises that the wind at 400 Teresita and in Miraloma Park generally is gusty rather than relatively consistent and laminar (as recommended), and estimated it to average 8 to 12 mph. This factor and the proximity of the unit to the house will result in significant underperformance. Mr. Pelman said in a letter to the Planning Department that “in my opinion the technology selected for this particular build does not meet the criteria for appropriate wind turbine technology in an urban environment as it has been designed for customers who reside in less densely populated areas where both wind quality and aesthetics are not a prime concern.”

In fact, the same model SWG installed one-half mile away at 167 Hernandez (Forest Hill Extension) provided only 1/6 the rated power. Neighbors of this SWG owner complained repeatedly about noise and “strobe effect” from light reflecting off of the blades, which are commonly, reported adverse effects of SWGs. The owner of the Hernandez home has stated that he does not recommend the unit and wants to remove it. The Task Force Report urges demonstration sites in SF, and this one quite close to the proposed Teresita site demonstrates many negatives and no positives. Note also that the Teresita installation would be within 12 to 15 feet of a major intersection, potentially distracting drivers by its size, motion, strobe effects, noise, and novelty, and thus raising the hazard of accidents.
To promote safety and to avoid adverse sound and light effects on neighbors, a publication of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), a strong proponent of SWGs, emphasizes that “good practice requires that a turbine in a residential district be ‘set back’ from a property line some given distance . . . [which] most commonly translates to the tower height plus the length of one blade.” [AWEA, How and Why to Permit for Small Wind Systems]  In the case of the SkyStream 3.7, this recommended setback would be a total of 47 feet. The actual planned setback at the proposed site would be about 6 feet. This publication further asserts that “The best sites for turbines are those where the wind is least obstructed . . . the bottom of the turbine rotor should clear the highest wind obstacle (rooftop, mature tree, etc.) within a 500 foot radius by at least 30 feet. Doing so ensures the turbine reaches consistent, fast wind speeds and prolongs the life of the turbine by avoiding stressful air turbulence.” This requirement will not be met at the 400 Teresita site, where the rotor bottom will be a few feet above the roof and 4 feet from the home’s front wall. The AWEA goes on to advise that “The aesthetic impact of wind turbines may be unacceptable in areas with historic significance where aesthetics play a role in a districts long-established character.” In a neighborhood 80 years old, like Miraloma Park, visual consistency with existing architecture is highly important.  In Wind Energy FAQs: “What do I need to know to purchase a residential wind turbine? the AWEA comments that a turbine rated in the range of 5 to 15 kilowatts is recommended “to make a significant [energy] contribution.”  According to the Skystream specifications, the proposed model has a rated capacity of 2.4 kw. The AWEA further states that except for turbines with rotors one meter or less in diameter, on very small towers, property size should be 1 acre or more. According to the Skystream specifications, rotors on the proposed model have a diameter of 3.72 meters. In the opinion of Sue Kirkham, a veteran real estate broker who specializes in sales of property in the Miraloma Park, neighborhood property values would be adversely affected by the installation of the SWG. Not only would the turbine interfere with vistas and air spaces, which are important to prospective buyers in this neighborhood, says Ms. Kirkham, but property owners in the vicinity of the SWG would be required to disclose to prospective buyers all of its negative impacts,
including, but perhaps not limited to, the noise and light effects of the SWG. Owners of the SWG would be required to disclose these facts, as well as any underperformance of the equipment.

The History

In 2009, the San Francisco Urban Wind Power Task Force, constituted by Mayor Newsom to investigate the potential use of wind power in SF, published its Report and Recommendations. This document was quite positive about the prospects of wind-generated energy in some areas of San Francisco, but clearly advised further research into wind speeds at specific locations and into bird flight patterns. If the Planning Department has done these studies, they have not made known their
availability to the public. The cover letter of the Task Force’s report to Mayor Newsom (dated 9/21/2009) states, “We are in the very early stages of identifying the potential role ‘urban wind’ might play in the City’s renewable energy future.” Yet, on the basis of this admittedly preliminary investigation, the Mayor issued an executive order directing the Department of Building Inspection and Planning Department to expedite permitting and minimize costs for wind power in the city. The
new directive is focused on residential as well as commercial and municipal projects.

The Mayor’s desire to advance wind-derived energy, though laudable for its environmental conservation aims, was a general directive that did not consider one important fact: that SWG technology is nascent and has not yet developed units that are small enough to be efficient yet compatible with modest, close-set homes on small lots. The Mayor delegated these implementation-related considerations to the Planning Department. The Department, however, has waived all design
review of these units. But design review is required by the SF Planning Code and is in fact the law. The Department apparently feels that the Mayor’s directive gives it the power, in the interest of “expediting” SWGs, to ignore Code-mandated design review and to approve a permit to place an out-of-scale, 35-foot tall system with rotating blades 12 feet in diameter 4 feet in front of a 21-foot tall house, on a block with other houses of similar height: all of this in a neighborhood designed 80 years ago to maximize front vistas and minimize obstructive clutter by placing all utilities in the rear.

The Planning Department’s design review team declared that the City’s residential design guidelines and the Miraloma Park Residential Design Guidelines (MPRDG), by which such a structure is clearly inappropriate to and out of scale with the house and the block-face in which it is sited, were inapplicable to this project because these Guidelines did not mention wind power turbines! Of course they didn’t, because the Guidelines, the MPRDG adopted by the Planning Commission in 1999 and the City’s much further back in time, antedated the existence of urban SWGs. But that doesn’t mean the Guidelines don’t apply, or that the Department is not still mandated by Code to perform the design review that ought to have led them to reject this project out of hand. In fact, the MPIC would assert that the 35-foot additional structure 4 feet in front of this 21-foot house should be considered part of the structure of the house, a component of the façade which will no longer be viewable from the sidewalk and street without the intrusion of the SWG. The permit application itself defines this proposal as an “alteration” and “new construction”—rightly treating it as though it is part of the structure—and as such out of scale and proportion.

The Code does require design review as part of the permitting process, and it is in the spirit of the Code, with its strong orientation towards preserving residential neighborhood character deriving from Proposition M, if not the letter of the law, that MPIC has requested that the MPRDG be applied. Further, in Appendix D of the SF Wind Power Task Group Report is a memorandum from a senior planner that explicitly requires design review of SWG permits, as follows: “The project sponsor should balance SWG placement decisions that maximize power production with consideration of visual and noise impacts from the installation. Generally, the Department will encourage placement to minimize visibility of the installation from public rights of way, and minimize architectural, noise, and other impacts on the surrounding structures and neighborhood character.” Clearly, the Planning Department has ignored its own advice in failing to perform design review of the proposal for an SWG at 400 Teresita.

The MPIC has requested that Planning Department and the Commission keep in mind the overriding purpose of the design guidelines and design review, which is to preserve the “visual quality” of our neighborhoods, “by which to a large degree the character of San Francisco is defined.”  The proposed windmill turbine would be
located in the front of the house, only 4 feet from the front wall, extending no further than the front steps: and no one would contend that the front steps do not impact the visual aspect of the house. Though physically unattached to the house, except via electrical connection, the windmill turbine should be viewed for purposes of
design review as a component of the home’s façade and roof line. As the “Notice of Pre-Application” for this project states, the project is a “Vertical addition that adds seven or more feet (7′) to the existing building height” and the Notice of Building Permit Application (Section 311) describes the project as “New Construction.” In other words, the application describes the proposed structure as if it were part of the existing structure, consistent with our view that due to its proximity to the house the windmill turbine should undergo design review as if it were attached to the structure.
The MPIC does not believe that Mayor Newsom intended by his executive directive for “expedition” that the Planning Department should disregard the Code and ignore its own stated policy by approving SWGs without due consideration through Code-mandated design review. Rather, we infer that by delegating implementation of his directive to the Planning Department, the Mayor was relying upon Planning Department staff to create a reasonable approach to permitting these units. The MPIC’s DR request regarding the 400 Teresita SWG offers the Department the opportunity to develop policy and best practice for future SWG installations in the City’s residential neighborhoods that will take suitability of site and neighborhood character into account. Applications for these units will continue
as manufacturers promote and develop technology suitable to urban use. Even now, smaller rooftop units suitable for residential neighborhood installation are in development. (One such unit was recently and erroneously presented in a television report as being the type proposed for 400 Teresita.)  In the meantime, we hope
and expect that, before our residential streets are lined with towering SWGs, San Francisco’s Planning Department, at the direction of the Planning Commission, will do the right thing.

Fall Ballot Issues Forum

By Jim O’Donnell

In keeping with our on-going Fall series regarding city politics, MPIC will be featuring speakers, both pro and con, for the major ballot issues in the November election.

You will have the chance to ask questions and learn more about who is behind the ballot measures and their effect on the taxpayers and quality of life in the City.

The more salient ones are Propositions B (City Retirement and Health Plans), E (Election Day Voter Registration), G (Transit Operator Wages), and Health Service Board Elections (sponsored by Dist. 7 Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who will be attending).  Propositions B and G involve long-term effects on pensions of City and Muni employees, respectively.

Light Refreshments will be served. Please join us to rub shoulders with your neighbors and discuss the November election. See you there!

Date: Sunday, October 17th
Time: 2-5 pm
Where: Miraloma Park Improvement Clubhouse, Del Vale at O’Shaughnessy

Youth-Related Problems in Miraloma Park

From the MPIC Safety Committee

During March of 2010, a drug related stabbing took place at the Rockdale Drive trailhead into Mt. Davidson Park. Although violent criminal activity on the Mountain is uncommon, this crime became the focus of MPIC efforts to abate illegal and nuisance activity by youth not only in the immediate vicinity of the trailhead, but also in so-called Dog Alley, the pedestrian walkway connecting the 800 block of Portola Drive with Juanita Way, and on the Portola shopping strip. Residents in both areas had experienced frequent problems with congregating youth congregating during, drinking, smoking marijuana, in at least one instance, throwing rocks at houses and cursing residents, and creating unacceptable noise and litter. Increased police patrols of these areas could not address the root causes of the problem: unsupervised youth. Residents called for SOTA to be made a closed campus, which was and is always an option, but could we verify that SOTA students were solely responsible for the problems caused by youth in these problem areas?

At our request, then-Ingleside Station Captain David Lazar initiated a process to convene all youth-serving agencies in our area: the School of the Arts and the Academy of Arts and Sciences (on the SOTA Campus) and the Early Morning Study Academy and Juvenile Probation Department, both at the Juvenile Justice Center, 375 Woodside Avenue. In March, concerned residents and an MPIC Board member met with SOTA and Academy of Arts and Sciences Principal Mr. Carmelo Sgarlato, Ingleside Captain Louis Cassanego, Sergeant Jim Miller, Sergeant Alexa O’Brien, and then-SFPD School Resources Officer Lara Fuentes. This meeting was helpful in making clear the nature and seriousness of the problem. The next step was increased police presence and broader involvement of all youth-serving agencies in our area, with these agencies assuming greater responsibility for the off-campus behavior of students during school hours. MPIC is grateful to these agencies for their help.

In April, to develop a plan, a meeting at the Juvenile Justice Center, hosted by Chief Juvenile Probation Officer William Sifferman, was attended by Captain Cassanego, Mr. Sgarlato, an MPIC Board representative, and senior staff of the Juvenile Probation Department, Early Morning Study Academy, SOTA, and San Francisco Unified School District Court Schools.

This was an extremely productive meeting. All participants were sincerely concerned about the youth-related problems in Miraloma Park and recognized that amending the situation not only would meet residents’ needs, but also would increase the youths’ safety and well being. The group, in the best collaborative spirit, developed a plan consisting of these main components:

• Students at SOTA and EMSA will be informed of the areas they are allowed to enter if permitted to leave the school campus during the school day. [Please note: in April, 2010, EMSA became a closed campus.]
• SFPD will make passing calls specifically during the noon hour in the areas previously identified as problematic.
• Field ID cards completed by SFPD personnel on minors found within the Miraloma Park neighborhood during school hours will be forwarded to both the Juvenile Probation Department and SOTA administrators.
• Staff from JPD, EMSA, and SOTA will conduct frequent periodic walk-throughs throughout the neighborhood to identify students engaged in inappropriate conduct.
• Principal Sgarloto will address the student body at SOTA regarding the concerns raised during this meeting and his expectations for students and their conduct within the local neighborhood.

Once the plan was implemented, our residents reported that youth had ceased congregating in what had been problem areas. The MPIC has requested that the Plan be re-implemented during the 2010–2011 academic year.

The Board of Directors of the MPIC gratefully thanks Captain Cassanego, Mr. Sgarlato, Mr. Sifferman, and all of the dedicated professionals serving San Francisco’s children and youth for giving their time, expertise, and commitment to improving safety and quality of life, not only for Miraloma Park residents, but also for our community’s youth.

Miraloma Elementary School Traffic and Parking Mitigation Plan

Increasingly, residents in the immediate vicinity of Miraloma Elementary School have reported serious parking and traffic congestion problems, especially blocked driveways, resulting from School activities, particularly the Morning Circle activity, in which all parents are asked to participate. The MPIC is mindful that this activity has been a key factor in improving School performance, as has parent involvement generally (reflected, as we understand, in increased enrollment applications), and
we warmly applaud the efforts of parents and faculty to make Miraloma Elementary an excellent school. The MPIC is proud to have supported the School’s Native Plant and Educational Garden Project, and we look forward to helping the School in other ways, as well.

Initially, MPIC addressed residents’ concerns via SFPD and—occasionally—SFMTA enforcement, but this approach only addressed symptoms of the problem, not root causes, and for this reason, could not provide an effective, long-term resolution.  The MPIC Board of Directors Safety Committee (Robert Gee, Jim Ilardo, Mike Naughton, and Karen Wood) decided, with our Board’s support, to develop a collaborative approach so that we could work in partnership with the School to abate problems. We began by surveying residents in the immediate vicinity of the School, and found that those living close to the School experienced serious congestion-related problems during school drop-off and pick-up times. We developed a Traffic and Parking Congestion Mitigation Plan which was presented—and well received—in a meeting with Principal Machado, officers of Ingleside Station and the SFMTA (aka DPT). Major components of Plan, the result of several months of work involving the Safety Committee, Ingleside Station, and SFMTA, are:

(1) a process for communicating directly with Mr. Machado when residents’ driveways are blocked so that he can advise vehicle owners to move their vehicles immediately,

(2) notification of residents in the immediate vicinity of the School of this process and providing contact information to be used in the event that a driveway is blocked,

(3) a comprehensive plan for educating parents about the importance of not parking vehicles at corners, on bulb-outs, or blocking driveways;

(4) increased and ongoing monitoring of traffic and parking patterns by School personnel, and (5) increased SFMTA and SFPD patrols. (MPIC has provided the School with reflective safety vests for this purpose.)

The MPIC is grateful to Mr. Machado, the SFPD, and SFMTA for working as a team with us.  We are prepared to assist Miraloma Elementary School as much as we are able in the plan’s implementation, and we expect that our efforts will lead to mutually beneficial community building.

Co-Existing With Coyotes

by San Francisco Animal Care and Control

Coyotes inhabit City parks, notably Glen Park canyon, and have recently been reported sighted on the 500 block of Myra Way (near the stairway leading to Bella Vista), on the 300 block of Teresita, near Marietta, and on Mt. Davidson. SF Animal Care and Control advises the following precautions with respect to coyotes (see
also http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=1081):

Common Sense Tips If Your Neighborhood Has Coyotes

• Keep pets indoors, especially at night.
• Never feed a coyote. Feeding a coyote can put your family and your pets at risk as the animal learns to expect food and loses their natural fear of humans.
• Feed your pets indoors, or promptly remove outdoor food dishes when your pet finishes their meal.
• Secure garbage cans with a lid that fastens shut or a bungee cord, or keep garbage in an area that is secure from wildlife. Coyotes can tip garbage cans and obtain an easy meal. Put garbage out the morning of your pick-up to cut down on the amount of time the cans are accessible.
• If a coyote is frequenting your neighborhood, let them know that they are not welcome. Make loud noises, squirt them with a hose or super-soaker, or pop a balloon.

It’s important that coyotes stay wary of humans.
• Keep pets on leash in areas frequented by coyotes. Keep a close eye on dogs when using a long, retractable leash.
• Pick ripe fruit off of trees, and pick up fruit that has fallen to the ground.

If You Encounter a Coyote:
• Do not let your dog interact with a coyote.
• Never turn your back on a coyote or run from a coyote.
• If you encounter a coyote, shout, wave your arms, throw small rocks. The goal is to appear threatening to frighten the coyote away, not to injure it.
• Carry a cane/stick, an air horn or a whistle with you on walks to frighten a coyote away.
• Never let a coyote come between you and your child or pet.

If a coyote is acting aggressively or exhibiting strange behavior, please call Animal Care and Control at (415) 554-9400. Animal Care and Control is keeping a log of coyote sightings in San Francisco. To report a sighting, please e-mail the date, time, location and any other details of the sighting to: ACC@sfgov.org.

June 17 MPIC Election Results

On MPIC election night, an enthralled audience listened to Greg Gaar as he showed his historic photos. Voting members re-elected all MPIC Board members and officers on the ballot, so the Board is now constituted as listed on the back page of this newsletter. Thad Sauvain was omitted from the ballot in error, but had accepted the job of Treasurer and has been appointed to that position by President Mike Naughton, subject to confirmation by a membership vote at the next meeting attended by a quorum. Karen Breslin takes over as President, and we welcome her to the leadership role.

Phil Laird, who was both Treasurer and Clubhouse Manager, finished his term in June and decided not to run for re-election. His role as Treasurer was taken on by Thad Sauvain, while the Clubhouse Manager position will now be filled by a committee chaired by Gary Isaacson. The MPIC thanks Phil for his dedicated service over the last four years. In addition to the above positions, he also chaired the membership committee. and his ideas played a major role in increasing membership
by about 35%. Phil was unsparing of his energy and time, contributing in many areas, and we will miss him and wish him well in his new endeavors. We are thankful that he has agreed to continue to do layout for the Miraloma Life.

Jed Lane, who served on the Zoning and Planning Committee and was Alternate Delegate to the Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, resigned at the beginning of June.

We wish him well in his pursuits.

Summary of Minutes of MPIC Board Meeting of August 5, 2010

by Joanne Whitney and Dan Liberthson

Karen Breslin, President, called the meeting to order with a quorum present. The June minutes were approved with corrections and the Treasurer’s report accepted.

General Issues: Discussion of E-Mail Motions—Email motions will be monitored by the President who will report results (including vote counts) to the Recording Secretary. E-mail motions between the June and August meetings, all passing, included: MPIC to oppose Wind turbine on 400 Teresita and pay $300 DR fee that will be returned if DR is successful (note: it later became known that the fee is waived for recognized neighborhood groups like MPIC). Question by K Breslin: Is there a finance committee? Answer: R Gee, N Don, and J Eastep are the Audit Committee.  Having a finance committee will be considered.

Correspondence: D Liberthson sent a letter to the Examiner re wind turbines. M Naughton reported cement block area at reservoir looks terrible; request sent to clean up, plant around to improve looks. Response was that goats may be coming but will only take away weeds.  Plantings needed similar to Rockdale side to beauty unsightly construction.

Committees: Zoning and Planning—C Mettling-Davis attended Planning Commission to represent MPIC opposition to Los Palmos project on grounds too much of lots is covered by structure (inconsistent with neighborhood character). Project was approved. Safety—Graffiti—Large tags painted out on Mt. Davidson and in Glen Park by D Liberthson (Dist. 7 delegate to City’s Graffiti Taskforce). General: More Board members needed to volunteer to attend City meetings, especially
zoning/planning. K Wood will keep Board informed of meetings scheduled and relevant committee will provide background for attendee. Safety—K Wood introduced Officer Frazier who is assigned to Car 4 which patrols our neighborhood.  Officer Frazier says he tells it as it is.  Car 4 is not out patrolling 8 hours every shift but our area is covered.  He reminded us how lucky we were to be so free of crime and how by being vigilant we could prevent crime. K Wood reminded him that all that Miraloma Park pays taxes and the constant surveillance of our neighborhood helps to keep it safe. She also reported on activities and youth problems at Miraloma school and on traffic safety work with the school. Membership—R Gee reports now over 500 members; new membership drive discussed. Events—J O’Donnell will set up and MC program re election propositions on 10/17. J Whitney will make posters.  S Kirkham said Nicole Imhof (naimhof@dons.usfca.edu) should be able to help with publicity and will attend next meeting. J Whitney will get Health Insurance Counseling Program on Medicare Benefits for a talk as an event for January or February. Transportation—G Noguera reports the gas station will not be a Walgreens but a CVS.

Community Organizations: Coalition for SF Neighborhoods(CSFN)—D. Liberthson to request support of CSFN vs windmill turbine application on Teresita and to urge Planning Department to do rigorous design review of all windmill turbine applications (both motions later passed at CSFN). Ingleside Community Advisory Board to Police—J Whitney was appointed to this Board and will be on the committee to compose safety flyers. The DA responded to a letter from Jed Lane, saying that they will be very aggressive in pursuing case in which knife thrown into schoolyard. District 7 Conveners’ Meeting—Convener group discontinued but trying to form a
new group to carry out some activities (J Whitney supporting). West of Twin Peaks Central Council—No meeting (summer break).

Clubhouse: Management—G Isaacson will Chair a committee including J Eastep, C Mettling-Davis, and one other (sought) to share management, each managing for 3 months in sequence.  Isaacson will set up a meeting with rental agent Larry Weiss to develop protocol for their interaction. Mail will be collected by manager and distributed to proper person. All Board members may take turns taking out garbage. Details to be ironed out in committee. Grounds—PUC will investigate condition of trees in parking lot, one of which lost a large branch.  In meantime, caution users not to park under trees. D Liberthson finished pile of mulch under fallen branch, putting it on native plant garden. Maintenance—Floor will be refurbished later in the month. D. Liberthson patched and painted parking lot gate and all exterior posts/stakes