Talking points for Steve Kawa
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian Flood
Jan 20, 2012, 11:48:07 AM1/20/12
to Stop Parking Meters in Dogpatch, Potrero and Mission Bay
A good friend and co-worker of mine is having dinner with Steve Kawa
(Ed Lee's Chief of Staff) this weekend and has asked for some talking
points from me and promised she will address this issue with him one-
on-one. I'm putting together a list and welcome any input. I will of
course include the info provided in previous emails (like what Jeff
has discussed in earlier strings). Thanks!
(Ed Lee's Chief of Staff) this weekend and has asked for some talking
points from me and promised she will address this issue with him one-
on-one. I'm putting together a list and welcome any input. I will of
course include the info provided in previous emails (like what Jeff
has discussed in earlier strings). Thanks!
Brian Flood
Jan 20, 2012, 1:56:52 PM1/20/12
to Stop Parking Meters in Dogpatch, Potrero and Mission Bay
Here is what I have so far. Please let me know if you can refine them
or have anything to add. As talking points I'm trying to keep them as
short and succinct as possible, which is not something I'm very good
at.
Some background:
The program is called SFPark and is under the SFMTA. They are
experimenting with variable rate parking meters in several areas that
make perfect sense like the Financial District and Fisherman’s Warf
where parking is an issue and there is little to no residential areas.
The new meters have no time limits and current prices range from $.75
to $4.25/hr but will go up to $6 eventually and currently go up to $18/
hr. for special event parking. They adjust the prices every 4-6 weeks.
It is all based on the theories of Donald Shoup, a professor of public
policy at UCLA who implemented similar programs in downtown L.A. His
theories are very applicable to congested downtown areas but don’t
make much sense in residential areas.
Talking Points:
The new areas that they are planning to install these meters have
large residential populations and are mostly zoned as PDR (Production,
Distribution and Repair), but under the Eastern Neighborhoods
Development Plan will be converted to Mixed Use Residential over the
next ten years that will only increase the amount of residential
units. They are not in any way commercial districts.
There was little to no outreach done by Jay Primus (the architect of
the plan and manager of SFPark) to residents and businesses in the
area. At least one resident requested records (names/dates) under the
sunshine ordinance of the outreach he claims he did and he said he
didn’t keep any.
During the SFMTA hearing on Jan. 13th, over 300 people showed up to
protest and over 100 actually spoke on the record for two minutes each
under the public comment period. Following the 3.5 hours of hearing
the committee approved the SFPark proposal with almost no changes.
(http://missionlocal.org/2012/01/residents-outraged-by-proposed-
parking-meters-are-mostly-ignored/) and (http://www.sfbg.com/politics/
2012/01/13/residents-slam-proposal-more-parking-meters)
Our area of Dogpatch/Potrero Hill has, in most areas, very available
parking which is a big reason many of us moved here. The issues that
are supposed to be addressed in the SFPark plan (double parking,
circling for spots, traffic congestion) do not exist here.
Putting meters in residential areas provides a disincentive for us to
take alternative transit to work. If we have to pay meters to park our
cars at home we will start to drive to work more instead of taking
transit. We could save the $62 for a Muni pass plus the $60+ per month
for parking meters by just driving. We do not believe the introductory
price of $.25/hour will remain in effect after the first few weeks,
providing a higher disincentive.
Current parking regulations (time limits, residential permit
requirements) would solve any parking problems in areas where they
exist but these regulations are not currently enforced. This was
addressed by our Supervisor (Malia Cohen) in a letter to SFMTA in
opposition to the plan.
The few residential permit spots (which will not have meters) will be
in high demand and residents will start to circle to avoid paying for
metered spots, double park and cause most of the issues that the
meters are supposed to avoid. Increasing the amount of Residential
Permit Parking might alleviate this but is not appropriate in some
areas like the 22nd Caltrain station.
The area around the 22nd St. Caltrain station is not served by Muni or
any other transit system. Installing meters there will only provide a
disincentive to use Caltrain and increase traffic, pollution, etc. The
area around the 4th and Townsend station where they installed these
meters and used to be is now deserted. It is likely these people now
drive to work instead of using the train.
Businesses in the area such as Trimark Restaurant Supply have said
that they will move out of SF to Daly City where it is cheaper, taking
their over 100 jobs/employees with them. Their employees rely on the
parking around the businesses and are not in high wage jobs. In cases
like Trimark there are empty lots and railroad tracks surrounding the
property, and the meters would be a direct affront to their employees
and customers. There is no transit service to that area as an
alternative to driving.
The area of Dogpatch is a designated historical district and as such
many of the residential units predate the proliferation of personal
vehicles and do not include garages or additional parking. We cannot
build garages because of this designation. The meters would also be a
blight and significantly change the character of our historic
neighborhood.
or have anything to add. As talking points I'm trying to keep them as
short and succinct as possible, which is not something I'm very good
at.
Some background:
The program is called SFPark and is under the SFMTA. They are
experimenting with variable rate parking meters in several areas that
make perfect sense like the Financial District and Fisherman’s Warf
where parking is an issue and there is little to no residential areas.
The new meters have no time limits and current prices range from $.75
to $4.25/hr but will go up to $6 eventually and currently go up to $18/
hr. for special event parking. They adjust the prices every 4-6 weeks.
It is all based on the theories of Donald Shoup, a professor of public
policy at UCLA who implemented similar programs in downtown L.A. His
theories are very applicable to congested downtown areas but don’t
make much sense in residential areas.
Talking Points:
The new areas that they are planning to install these meters have
large residential populations and are mostly zoned as PDR (Production,
Distribution and Repair), but under the Eastern Neighborhoods
Development Plan will be converted to Mixed Use Residential over the
next ten years that will only increase the amount of residential
units. They are not in any way commercial districts.
There was little to no outreach done by Jay Primus (the architect of
the plan and manager of SFPark) to residents and businesses in the
area. At least one resident requested records (names/dates) under the
sunshine ordinance of the outreach he claims he did and he said he
didn’t keep any.
During the SFMTA hearing on Jan. 13th, over 300 people showed up to
protest and over 100 actually spoke on the record for two minutes each
under the public comment period. Following the 3.5 hours of hearing
the committee approved the SFPark proposal with almost no changes.
(http://missionlocal.org/2012/01/residents-outraged-by-proposed-
parking-meters-are-mostly-ignored/) and (http://www.sfbg.com/politics/
2012/01/13/residents-slam-proposal-more-parking-meters)
Our area of Dogpatch/Potrero Hill has, in most areas, very available
parking which is a big reason many of us moved here. The issues that
are supposed to be addressed in the SFPark plan (double parking,
circling for spots, traffic congestion) do not exist here.
Putting meters in residential areas provides a disincentive for us to
take alternative transit to work. If we have to pay meters to park our
cars at home we will start to drive to work more instead of taking
transit. We could save the $62 for a Muni pass plus the $60+ per month
for parking meters by just driving. We do not believe the introductory
price of $.25/hour will remain in effect after the first few weeks,
providing a higher disincentive.
Current parking regulations (time limits, residential permit
requirements) would solve any parking problems in areas where they
exist but these regulations are not currently enforced. This was
addressed by our Supervisor (Malia Cohen) in a letter to SFMTA in
opposition to the plan.
The few residential permit spots (which will not have meters) will be
in high demand and residents will start to circle to avoid paying for
metered spots, double park and cause most of the issues that the
meters are supposed to avoid. Increasing the amount of Residential
Permit Parking might alleviate this but is not appropriate in some
areas like the 22nd Caltrain station.
The area around the 22nd St. Caltrain station is not served by Muni or
any other transit system. Installing meters there will only provide a
disincentive to use Caltrain and increase traffic, pollution, etc. The
area around the 4th and Townsend station where they installed these
meters and used to be is now deserted. It is likely these people now
drive to work instead of using the train.
Businesses in the area such as Trimark Restaurant Supply have said
that they will move out of SF to Daly City where it is cheaper, taking
their over 100 jobs/employees with them. Their employees rely on the
parking around the businesses and are not in high wage jobs. In cases
like Trimark there are empty lots and railroad tracks surrounding the
property, and the meters would be a direct affront to their employees
and customers. There is no transit service to that area as an
alternative to driving.
The area of Dogpatch is a designated historical district and as such
many of the residential units predate the proliferation of personal
vehicles and do not include garages or additional parking. We cannot
build garages because of this designation. The meters would also be a
blight and significantly change the character of our historic
neighborhood.
Jeff Lerman
Jan 20, 2012, 2:52:08 PM1/20/12
to Stop Parking Meters in Dogpatch, Potrero and Mission Bay
Brian,
That looks great. If you can squeeze it in succinctly, some
additional information regarding 22nd St. Station ridership is
available here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/Ridership/2011+Caltrain+Ridership+Counts+FINAL.pdf
Some key points (based on Feb. 2011 annual statistics - the latest
available):
Over 1,000 riders use 22nd St. Station on an average weekday,
representing over 10% of the total riders boarding Caltrain from San
Francisco
That number increased by 23% from 2010-2011, a faster rate-of-
increase than any other station in the system; it is probably even
higher now
Also relevant:
San Francisco contributes to the CalTrain budget (exact amount not
broken out in documents I could find (http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/
_Finance/Fiscal+Year+Operating+Budget/FY2012+JPB+Operating+Budget.pdf)
but Malia Cohen should know since she is now on the Joint Powers Board
that, as I understand it, manages Caltrain - it seems to be somewhere
between $1.5M and $4.5M for this fiscal year); it is counterproductive
for SFMTA to simultaneously attack Caltrain's farebox revenue
(discouraging Caltrain ridership by charging for parking and not
implementing commuter-oriented Muni service [high-frequency/high-speed/
timed to meet baby bullet trains] to that station).
--Jeff
That looks great. If you can squeeze it in succinctly, some
additional information regarding 22nd St. Station ridership is
available here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/Ridership/2011+Caltrain+Ridership+Counts+FINAL.pdf
Some key points (based on Feb. 2011 annual statistics - the latest
available):
Over 1,000 riders use 22nd St. Station on an average weekday,
representing over 10% of the total riders boarding Caltrain from San
Francisco
That number increased by 23% from 2010-2011, a faster rate-of-
increase than any other station in the system; it is probably even
higher now
Also relevant:
San Francisco contributes to the CalTrain budget (exact amount not
broken out in documents I could find (http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/
_Finance/Fiscal+Year+Operating+Budget/FY2012+JPB+Operating+Budget.pdf)
but Malia Cohen should know since she is now on the Joint Powers Board
that, as I understand it, manages Caltrain - it seems to be somewhere
between $1.5M and $4.5M for this fiscal year); it is counterproductive
for SFMTA to simultaneously attack Caltrain's farebox revenue
(discouraging Caltrain ridership by charging for parking and not
implementing commuter-oriented Muni service [high-frequency/high-speed/
timed to meet baby bullet trains] to that station).
--Jeff
Nicky Jacobson
Jan 20, 2012, 6:06:35 PM1/20/12
to Stop Parking Meters in Dogpatch, Potrero and Mission Bay
Into it, love your talking points! Seems like 2 main things 1)money
and 2)environmental issues are what Jay Primus is using to drive the
meter plan forward and that should be told to Steve first off. And
then go into your arguments debunking each and then anything else.
Just so it's organized by topic to be easier to wrap your head around
a couple of central themes.
I would move this paragraph up to right after the "background" area:
children:
families here. When you
have a child having a car to get them to school and activities is
essential. Also
as a PDR zone many of the workers need cars and that's why businesses
moved to this area and why business owners are so outraged. These are
the workers that run supplies around town, like kitchen
wares, food products, furniture samples, etc. We all want to get out
of our cars
more but sometimes it's not possible.
I would probably axe these paragraphs but maybe add sentence
about each of these in the background area. It seems like we should
be
downplaying the residential aspect somewhat but I'm not sure how to do
that
and still get our point across:
I met
with Jeff Burton today the owner of Bed+Beyond and he was FURIOUS that
the proposal passed. He said he had been thinking of downsizing his
SF
store and opening a bigger one in San Mateo and will do so if they
meter, so feel
free to add him to the list that will leave.
And a final thing I would print out 2 copies so that Steve can have an
organized bulleted list to take away with him (if your coworker is OK
with that).
Please feel free to ignore any or all of my comments, I seriously
won't mind.
I think you've done such a great job, they are really no big deal but
just thought I would throw in my
2cents! Thanks Brian!!
and 2)environmental issues are what Jay Primus is using to drive the
meter plan forward and that should be told to Steve first off. And
then go into your arguments debunking each and then anything else.
Just so it's organized by topic to be easier to wrap your head around
a couple of central themes.
I would move this paragraph up to right after the "background" area:
During the SFMTA hearing on Jan. 13th, over 300 people showed up to
protest and over 100 actually spoke on the record for two minutes each
under the public comment period. Following the 3.5 hours of hearing
the committee approved the SFPark proposal with almost no changes.
(http://missionlocal.org/2012/01/residents-outraged-by-proposed-
parking-meters-are-mostly-ignored/) and (http://www.sfbg.com/politics/
2012/01/13/residents-slam-proposal-more-parking-meters)
I would change this paragraph around and add stuff about moms/
protest and over 100 actually spoke on the record for two minutes each
under the public comment period. Following the 3.5 hours of hearing
the committee approved the SFPark proposal with almost no changes.
(http://missionlocal.org/2012/01/residents-outraged-by-proposed-
parking-meters-are-mostly-ignored/) and (http://www.sfbg.com/politics/
2012/01/13/residents-slam-proposal-more-parking-meters)
children:
The issues that are supposed to be addressed in the SFPark plan
(double parking,
circling for spots, traffic congestion) do not exist here.
(double parking,
circling for spots, traffic congestion) do not exist here.
Our area of Dogpatch/Potrero Hill has, in most areas, very available
parking which is a big reason many of us with cars moved here. We are
families here. When you
have a child having a car to get them to school and activities is
essential. Also
as a PDR zone many of the workers need cars and that's why businesses
moved to this area and why business owners are so outraged. These are
the workers that run supplies around town, like kitchen
wares, food products, furniture samples, etc. We all want to get out
of our cars
more but sometimes it's not possible.
I would probably axe these paragraphs but maybe add sentence
about each of these in the background area. It seems like we should
be
downplaying the residential aspect somewhat but I'm not sure how to do
that
and still get our point across:
Current parking regulations (time limits, residential permit
requirements) would solve any parking problems in areas where they
exist but these regulations are not currently enforced. This was
addressed by our Supervisor (Malia Cohen) in a letter to SFMTA in
opposition to the plan.
requirements) would solve any parking problems in areas where they
exist but these regulations are not currently enforced. This was
addressed by our Supervisor (Malia Cohen) in a letter to SFMTA in
opposition to the plan.
The area of Dogpatch is a designated historical district and as such
many of the residential units predate the proliferation of personal
vehicles and do not include garages or additional parking. We cannot
build garages because of this designation. The meters would also be a
blight and significantly change the character of our historic
neighborhood.
I would definitely be hitting hard with the businesses leaving thing.
many of the residential units predate the proliferation of personal
vehicles and do not include garages or additional parking. We cannot
build garages because of this designation. The meters would also be a
blight and significantly change the character of our historic
neighborhood.
I met
with Jeff Burton today the owner of Bed+Beyond and he was FURIOUS that
the proposal passed. He said he had been thinking of downsizing his
SF
store and opening a bigger one in San Mateo and will do so if they
meter, so feel
free to add him to the list that will leave.
And a final thing I would print out 2 copies so that Steve can have an
organized bulleted list to take away with him (if your coworker is OK
with that).
Please feel free to ignore any or all of my comments, I seriously
won't mind.
I think you've done such a great job, they are really no big deal but
just thought I would throw in my
2cents! Thanks Brian!!
dinon...@comcast.net
Jan 22, 2012, 4:54:34 AM1/22/12
to nomore...@googlegroups.com
This looks good Brian.
From: "Brian Flood" <rbf...@gmail.com>
To: "Stop Parking Meters in Dogpatch, Potrero and Mission Bay" <NoMore...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:56:52 AM
Subject: Re: Talking points for Steve Kawa
From: "Brian Flood" <rbf...@gmail.com>
To: "Stop Parking Meters in Dogpatch, Potrero and Mission Bay" <NoMore...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:56:52 AM
Subject: Re: Talking points for Steve Kawa
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages