[Carfreeliving] Scoping for the EIR on UC Extension

[Bert Hill]

Within the current context of 'Clear Skies', 'Healthy Forests', 'Patriot
Act', 'Aiding the Enemy', and '..in its last throes' the statement makes
perfect sense.  

Obviously, bikes get in the way of cars, so cars can't move at maximum
efficiency, thereby contributing to pollution and global warming.  It sure
makes sense to the average driver.

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
[mailto:Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org] On Behalf Of David Baker
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:34 AM
To: Carfreeliving at livablecity.org
Subject: RE: [Carfreeliving] Scoping for the EIR on UC Extension

Paul Maltzer once said to me something like, "And some people assume
that bikes are automatically better environmentally than cars!" like
that was an outrageous concept.


-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Switzky [mailto:Joshua.Switzky at sfgov.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:59 AM
To: David Baker
Subject: RE: [Carfreeliving] Scoping for the EIR on UC Extension

I'm not exactly sure. The Planning Dept (MEA) publishes a document, but
I
believe the Board has to ratify it or something.
-j
 
"David Baker"
<db at dbarchitect.c        
[David Baker] 
To:       "Joshua Switzky" <Joshua.Switzky at sfgov.org>

                      om>                      cc:
Subject:  RE: [Carfreeliving] Scoping for the EIR on UC Extension

                      06/18/2005 12:53

                      PM

 

Who determines the review standards in SF?


-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Switzky [mailto:Joshua.Switzky at sfgov.org]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 4:54 PM
To: jhenders at sbcglobal.net
Cc: 'Carfreeliving'; Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
Subject: Re: [Carfreeliving] Scoping for the EIR on UC Extension





you can ask for it, but to be honest, I don't think it really matters
how much parking is in the EIR. As we all know, environmental review
standards used by SF are somewhat archaic -- there is no connection
between parking provided and traffic generation or between parking
provided and auto ownership, or anything else we all experience
empirically and "know"
intuitively. However, while parking is briefly discussed in EIRs, almost
every EIR has the disclaimer that in general, parking shortfalls (or
"deficits") in transit rich areas are social impacts, not permanent
environmental ones, and that peope will often switch modes, etc. Maybe
it can't hurt to ask for the EIR to discuss a range of parking
scenarios, but what's in the EIR for parking isn't likely to restrict
the ultimate outcome one way or the other. Another important thing to
note is that EIR do to things in respect to parking, they state the
Planning Code required parking and compare it to the proposal, and state
the calculated "demand" for parking and compare it to the proposal.
Believe it or not, the Planning Code requirement of 1:1 is a lower
amount than the city's formulas for calculating residential parking
would estimate, which results in a factor equivalent to something like
1.1 or 1.2 cars per unit. So everytime this shows that even if they
provide 1:1 that there is a parking "deficit."
Advocating for the EIR to examine a lower parking scenario would only
show a larger "deficit" which will be fodder for the parking fanatics.
Without changing the standards of analysis by which we measure parking
and traffic in EIRs in SF, I think it's somewhat pointless and possibly
counterproductive to advocate for less parking to be included in EIRs.
my two cents.
-j





                      Jason Henderson

                      <jhenders at sbcglobal.net>          To:
"'Carfreeliving'" <carfreeliving at livablecity.org>
                      Sent by:                          cc:

                      Carfreeliving-bounces at liva        Subject:
[Carfreeliving] Scoping for the EIR on UC Extension
                      blecity.org





                      06/17/2005 04:32 PM

                      Please respond to jhenders







Greetings fellow carfree travellers. I received a notice today for the
anticipated scoping meeting for the EIR on the UC Extension project
(Laguna-Herman-Haight-Buchanan). As you may recall, this is a proposal
for 450 housing units and 314 parking spaces on 5.8 acres. Big  urban
infill potential in transit rich, walkable, bikeable area.  Oral
comments will be allowed here, and written comments can be submitted.
Meeting is June 29th, 6pm, LGBT Center.

Would it behoove us to ask that the EIR include consideration of an
alternative with no parking, and an alternative with 0.3:1 parking? Has
this ever been requested at this stage of the EIR process? Anyone out
there with more experience on these scoping meetings? Theoretically we
have an opportunity to shape the breadth and depth of the EIR, correct?
Creating a paper trail advocating carfree development does seem like a
good idea. Would Walk SF, TLC, and SF Bike be interested in drafting
letters asking for carfree or carlite alternatives to be considered?  On
the other hand, is the CEQA process (with LOS dictating) so rigged that
for tactical reasons advocating for carfree at the EIR stage is not
advised at this stage? Any thoughts?

-jh

Jason Henderson
San Francisco CA
(415)-255-8136
jhenders at sbcglobal.net

(See attached file: jhenders.vcf)
_______________________________________________
Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list to facilitate and promote
car-free living in SF To unsubscribe:
mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
or, for all options, go to:
http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org





_______________________________________________
Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list 
to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
To unsubscribe: mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subjector, for
all options, go to:
http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org