[Carfreeliving] Scoping for the EIR on UC Extension

[Joshua Switzky]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jhenders.vcf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/carfreeliving_livablecity.org/attachments/20050617/3df8501b/jhenders.obj