Great insight into the legalities of the meter program - Thank you John Lum!
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Nicky Jacobson
Jan 20, 2012, 12:37:51 AM1/20/12
to Stop Parking Meters in Dogpatch, Potrero and Mission Bay
Miranda,
Neg dec means Negative Declaration. Per CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) any project that a government embarks on
has to weigh the environmental effects, hence an Environmental Impact
Report. Some projects don't have environmental impacts, and therefore
seek a neg dec, so that they do not have to do a report which can be
costly and take at least a year or two to write and get approved.
Similar to the Bike Lanes, SFMTA had a standing neg dec for the
implementation of that project, even though they were removing
substantial amounts of parking and reconfiguring traffic to
accommodate the lanes. The injunction that ensued was due to the
challenging of the granting of the neg dec, not the bike plan. A
judge agreed that an EIR should have been done, forcing the SFMTA to
do one, and then finally was able to implement their program. This
caused a delay of about 3 1/2 years in litigation and the 2 years to
write the EIR and get it approved.
I am not sure how you can get a neg dec for metering whole
neighborhoods when the plans are still not set. Also, note that EIR
only deal with environmental issues, not economic issues.
JL
On Jan 18, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Miranda Caroligne wrote:
>
>
> great advice John! Thanks for the headsup on the legalities.
>
> speaking for myself... what is "neg dec"? EIR= Environmental Impact Report, yes? This is all a little greek to me. :)
>
> as far as "I think our best chance is to get the message out and lobby the hell out of everyone who is making the decisions.... mainly the SFMTA Board and the Mayor's office. As I can't attend tonight, can someone put out a request to see who has connections in the Mayor's office? Economic development? Office of Small business? Not sure who could influence the board members."
> This is a great question for our Supervisors, whose emails have already been posted on this list: Cohen, Campos & Kim, as well as their aides. I also sent this to someone I worked with at MEDA (Mission Economic Development Agency) and will post his advice when I get it.
> :)m
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:22 PM, John Lum <john@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Again, all, we need to get a hold of the EIR neg dec for the metering program.
>
> That is the key to stopping this plan if it approved. There may be a flaw in the determination of the neg dec, and one could then appeal the ruling to the Board of Appeals (assuming the Planning Department has issued the neg deg... which is probably correct). My understanding that there is no other authority above the SFMTA per 1999 Prop E, and to try to sue a government agency will be expensive and difficult.
> This advice is from Mary Miller, the public interest lawyer who dealt with bike lanes.
>
> I think our best chance is to get the message out and lobby the hell out of everyone who is making the decisions.... mainly the SFMTA Board and the Mayor's office. As I can't attend tonight, can someone put out a request to see who has connections in the Mayor's office? Economic development? Office of Small business? Not sure who could influence the board members.
>
> John Lum
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Charlie O'Hanlon wrote:
>
>> Very good points Paul. I would like to add something rather important to this list. The wording of the proposal which Jay Primus quotes directly from in his now infamous speil states many things that this proposal does not follow. One is it does not actually allocate funding for new meters. It also states that there is supposed to be an outreach to merchants where reciepts are checked prior to meters being installed, and then after to assess whether the meters are increasing revenue by allowing more convenient parking for customers. And it clearly infers that the plan is intended for retail prominent areas (i.e downtown.). Jay Primus has played fast and loose with these guidelines in order to gain favor and get a gold star on his report card from the municipality. So there is a possibility that these funds put aside by the federal government are in principal being misappropriated by Jay Primus, Lauren, and the MTA, and that they are relying on a lack of true oversight on the matter on the part of the Federal government. Any of our more legal minded group members might want to read the text of the proposal.
>>
>>
>> Charlie O'Hanlon
>> charlies-place.com
>> From: Paul Sauer <paul_sauer@...>
>> To: ne_mi...@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 1:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: NE Mission Neighbors CBS Channel 5 News Clip RE: Meters
>>
>> The three-neighborhood group should develop a media outreach strategy with sound talking points and appoint those articulate people who can stay on point to talk to the media. The sheer numbers of people in these neighborhoods, and the unity of our actions should get some attention.
>>
>> I can help with that a little. I work in the media, though I don't work for any of the local outlets. Media would include local papers and TV stations, increasingly popular blogs like Mission Local.
>>
>> Some things that would help to know:
>>
>> How many people (businesses and residents) would be impacted?
>>
>> What are our main points? A few ideas below:
>>
>> 1. Lack of MTA outreach.
>> 2. Character-changing impact for neighborhoods of a hastily implemented experimental plan. (Historic Dogpatch becomes marred by the appearance of parking meters, Portrero residents don't seem to have a problem with parking, NE Mission PDR businesses could be force to leave, etc.)
>> 3. Stress this is not about cars and "free parking". We love bikes and walking. This is about the MTA's failure to involve three communities on how their streets are managed. How the MTA's plans will move artists and working people out of the neighborhoods, etc.
>> 4. This is an experimental plan; if MTA deems the experiment a success, every neighborhood in the city could be next -- even those residential neighborhoods like Sunset and Richmond. Our lives and livelihoods are being used for an MTA experiment.
>> 5. We would be happy to leave our cars if MTA provided a reliable and efficient MUNI system, but that doesn't exist.
>> 6. Jay Primus is trying to implement the academic theories of UCLA's Dr. Donald Shoup, whose plans are designed more for traditional downtown-type areas, not residential or mixed-use areas.
>> 7. Jay Primus's reasoning -- reducing circling for parking, reducing "collisions", Smart Phone communications, etc. are bogus in the face of the real impact the meters will have on neighborhoods.
>> 8. This is a money grab, another tax on citizens. The $.25 per hour is a tease and will go up. The net outcome of all this is MTA gets more money; that is their motivation.
>>
>> Whatever the talking points, we should reduce them to no more than 5 and keep them simple.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Jim Wilkins <wilkins.jim@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Jim Wilkins <wilkins.jim@...>
>> Subject: Re: NE Mission Neighbors CBS Channel 5 News Clip RE: Meters
>> To: ne_mi...@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 12:21 PM
>>
>>
>> Miranda, I agree with you. There are a lot of ideas that need chasing down, so the more people that can get actively involved, the better.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Miranda Caroligne <mirandacaroligne@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Great idea! Can you do it?
>> Personally speaking...there's a lot of great ideas being put out here...more ideas that can be done by the people who have been active "do-ers" thus far. We're tired, we're behind in our work, and now i'm sick. Yuck!
>> If you have an idea, please do share it, but better yet..take the lead on it! You've got hundreds of people to cheer you on :)
>> On Jan 18, 2012 9:55 AM, "mari eliza" <mari_eliza_@...> wrote:
>>
>> KQED is in our neighborhood. They should be contacted and they should join us. Channel 2 and 4 used to be the easiest to get on. They do the local news.
>>
>> Mari Eliza
>>
>> ***
>>
>> --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Susette | The Blackwell Files <susette@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Susette | The Blackwell Files <susette@...>
>> Subject: NE Mission Neighbors CBS Channel 5 News Clip RE: Meters
>> To: ne_mi...@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 7:32 AM
>>
>> fyi…
>> i just saw a 20 second news clip on this mornings channel 5 news
>> stating: "SF is about to install 5000 meters in 3 SF neighborhoods, those
>> meters would charge 25 cents per hour".
>>
>> that is all they said -- nothing about potential higher rates or having them parked
>> in front of residents and no mention of the uproar in our neighborhoods.
>>
>> does anyone have contacts there to fill them in on the complete story?
>>
>> s
>>
Neg dec means Negative Declaration. Per CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) any project that a government embarks on
has to weigh the environmental effects, hence an Environmental Impact
Report. Some projects don't have environmental impacts, and therefore
seek a neg dec, so that they do not have to do a report which can be
costly and take at least a year or two to write and get approved.
Similar to the Bike Lanes, SFMTA had a standing neg dec for the
implementation of that project, even though they were removing
substantial amounts of parking and reconfiguring traffic to
accommodate the lanes. The injunction that ensued was due to the
challenging of the granting of the neg dec, not the bike plan. A
judge agreed that an EIR should have been done, forcing the SFMTA to
do one, and then finally was able to implement their program. This
caused a delay of about 3 1/2 years in litigation and the 2 years to
write the EIR and get it approved.
I am not sure how you can get a neg dec for metering whole
neighborhoods when the plans are still not set. Also, note that EIR
only deal with environmental issues, not economic issues.
JL
On Jan 18, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Miranda Caroligne wrote:
>
>
> great advice John! Thanks for the headsup on the legalities.
>
> speaking for myself... what is "neg dec"? EIR= Environmental Impact Report, yes? This is all a little greek to me. :)
>
> as far as "I think our best chance is to get the message out and lobby the hell out of everyone who is making the decisions.... mainly the SFMTA Board and the Mayor's office. As I can't attend tonight, can someone put out a request to see who has connections in the Mayor's office? Economic development? Office of Small business? Not sure who could influence the board members."
> This is a great question for our Supervisors, whose emails have already been posted on this list: Cohen, Campos & Kim, as well as their aides. I also sent this to someone I worked with at MEDA (Mission Economic Development Agency) and will post his advice when I get it.
> :)m
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:22 PM, John Lum <john@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Again, all, we need to get a hold of the EIR neg dec for the metering program.
>
> That is the key to stopping this plan if it approved. There may be a flaw in the determination of the neg dec, and one could then appeal the ruling to the Board of Appeals (assuming the Planning Department has issued the neg deg... which is probably correct). My understanding that there is no other authority above the SFMTA per 1999 Prop E, and to try to sue a government agency will be expensive and difficult.
> This advice is from Mary Miller, the public interest lawyer who dealt with bike lanes.
>
> I think our best chance is to get the message out and lobby the hell out of everyone who is making the decisions.... mainly the SFMTA Board and the Mayor's office. As I can't attend tonight, can someone put out a request to see who has connections in the Mayor's office? Economic development? Office of Small business? Not sure who could influence the board members.
>
> John Lum
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Charlie O'Hanlon wrote:
>
>> Very good points Paul. I would like to add something rather important to this list. The wording of the proposal which Jay Primus quotes directly from in his now infamous speil states many things that this proposal does not follow. One is it does not actually allocate funding for new meters. It also states that there is supposed to be an outreach to merchants where reciepts are checked prior to meters being installed, and then after to assess whether the meters are increasing revenue by allowing more convenient parking for customers. And it clearly infers that the plan is intended for retail prominent areas (i.e downtown.). Jay Primus has played fast and loose with these guidelines in order to gain favor and get a gold star on his report card from the municipality. So there is a possibility that these funds put aside by the federal government are in principal being misappropriated by Jay Primus, Lauren, and the MTA, and that they are relying on a lack of true oversight on the matter on the part of the Federal government. Any of our more legal minded group members might want to read the text of the proposal.
>>
>>
>> Charlie O'Hanlon
>> charlies-place.com
>> From: Paul Sauer <paul_sauer@...>
>> To: ne_mi...@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 1:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: NE Mission Neighbors CBS Channel 5 News Clip RE: Meters
>>
>> The three-neighborhood group should develop a media outreach strategy with sound talking points and appoint those articulate people who can stay on point to talk to the media. The sheer numbers of people in these neighborhoods, and the unity of our actions should get some attention.
>>
>> I can help with that a little. I work in the media, though I don't work for any of the local outlets. Media would include local papers and TV stations, increasingly popular blogs like Mission Local.
>>
>> Some things that would help to know:
>>
>> How many people (businesses and residents) would be impacted?
>>
>> What are our main points? A few ideas below:
>>
>> 1. Lack of MTA outreach.
>> 2. Character-changing impact for neighborhoods of a hastily implemented experimental plan. (Historic Dogpatch becomes marred by the appearance of parking meters, Portrero residents don't seem to have a problem with parking, NE Mission PDR businesses could be force to leave, etc.)
>> 3. Stress this is not about cars and "free parking". We love bikes and walking. This is about the MTA's failure to involve three communities on how their streets are managed. How the MTA's plans will move artists and working people out of the neighborhoods, etc.
>> 4. This is an experimental plan; if MTA deems the experiment a success, every neighborhood in the city could be next -- even those residential neighborhoods like Sunset and Richmond. Our lives and livelihoods are being used for an MTA experiment.
>> 5. We would be happy to leave our cars if MTA provided a reliable and efficient MUNI system, but that doesn't exist.
>> 6. Jay Primus is trying to implement the academic theories of UCLA's Dr. Donald Shoup, whose plans are designed more for traditional downtown-type areas, not residential or mixed-use areas.
>> 7. Jay Primus's reasoning -- reducing circling for parking, reducing "collisions", Smart Phone communications, etc. are bogus in the face of the real impact the meters will have on neighborhoods.
>> 8. This is a money grab, another tax on citizens. The $.25 per hour is a tease and will go up. The net outcome of all this is MTA gets more money; that is their motivation.
>>
>> Whatever the talking points, we should reduce them to no more than 5 and keep them simple.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Jim Wilkins <wilkins.jim@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Jim Wilkins <wilkins.jim@...>
>> Subject: Re: NE Mission Neighbors CBS Channel 5 News Clip RE: Meters
>> To: ne_mi...@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 12:21 PM
>>
>>
>> Miranda, I agree with you. There are a lot of ideas that need chasing down, so the more people that can get actively involved, the better.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Miranda Caroligne <mirandacaroligne@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Great idea! Can you do it?
>> Personally speaking...there's a lot of great ideas being put out here...more ideas that can be done by the people who have been active "do-ers" thus far. We're tired, we're behind in our work, and now i'm sick. Yuck!
>> If you have an idea, please do share it, but better yet..take the lead on it! You've got hundreds of people to cheer you on :)
>> On Jan 18, 2012 9:55 AM, "mari eliza" <mari_eliza_@...> wrote:
>>
>> KQED is in our neighborhood. They should be contacted and they should join us. Channel 2 and 4 used to be the easiest to get on. They do the local news.
>>
>> Mari Eliza
>>
>> ***
>>
>> --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Susette | The Blackwell Files <susette@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Susette | The Blackwell Files <susette@...>
>> Subject: NE Mission Neighbors CBS Channel 5 News Clip RE: Meters
>> To: ne_mi...@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 7:32 AM
>>
>> fyi…
>> i just saw a 20 second news clip on this mornings channel 5 news
>> stating: "SF is about to install 5000 meters in 3 SF neighborhoods, those
>> meters would charge 25 cents per hour".
>>
>> that is all they said -- nothing about potential higher rates or having them parked
>> in front of residents and no mention of the uproar in our neighborhoods.
>>
>> does anyone have contacts there to fill them in on the complete story?
>>
>> s
>>
Jeff Lerman
Jan 20, 2012, 12:49:08 AM1/20/12
to Stop Parking Meters in Dogpatch, Potrero and Mission Bay
Point 5 in Paul Sauer's email quoted below, combined with the fact
that these meters will be going up around the 22nd St. Caltrain
station, seems like a strong argument against the metering in this
area having no detrimental environmental impact. Inasmuch as the
meters discourage people from driving to Caltrain, and given that the
city has not provided alternative means to get to 22nd Street
Caltrain, installation of these meters will be encouraging people to
drive for long distances down the Peninsula on a daily basis - 50-100
mile round trips daily, instead of those same people taking the train
and only driving a few miles each day to get to the station and back
home.
Until an EIR is generated that reports on that impact, this project
would seem to be in contravention of CEQA.
--Jeff
> >> To: ne_miss...@yahoogroups.com
that these meters will be going up around the 22nd St. Caltrain
station, seems like a strong argument against the metering in this
area having no detrimental environmental impact. Inasmuch as the
meters discourage people from driving to Caltrain, and given that the
city has not provided alternative means to get to 22nd Street
Caltrain, installation of these meters will be encouraging people to
drive for long distances down the Peninsula on a daily basis - 50-100
mile round trips daily, instead of those same people taking the train
and only driving a few miles each day to get to the station and back
home.
Until an EIR is generated that reports on that impact, this project
would seem to be in contravention of CEQA.
--Jeff
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages