Today’s Headlines

  • Supervisors Reject Appeal for CEQA Review of Sunday Parking Meter Repeal (SF Examiner, SFBay)
  • Driver Injures 12-Year-Old Child at Valencia and 24th Streets (SFGate)
  • Driver Who Ran Over Sleeping Homeless Man in SoMa Charged With DUI, Veh. Manslaughter (KTVU)
  • SF Planning Commission Adopts Vision Zero Resolution (SFBC)
  • How Do Cities Look Beyond Pedestrian Danger “Hot Spots”? SFDPH is Leading the Way (Next City)
  • SFMTA, Muni Union Still at Impasse Over Labor Contract (KQED)
  • SFMTA to Hold Open House Monday on Haight Street Transit Upgrades for Muni 71 (Hoodline)
  • Panhandle Bike/Ped Path Hasn’t Been Paved Since 2003 (PPS)
  • SF Public Press Launches Kickstarter Campaign for Cargo Bike Newspaper Delivery (Mission Local)
  • SJ Council Approves Diridon Area Plan, Says Sharks Won’t Have Parking Veto, Revives Creek Plan (PTA)
  • Sausalito Looks to Restrict Growing Tour Bus Traffic (CBS, People Behaving Badly)
  • Wrong-Way Motorcyclist at GG Bridge Toll Plaza Confronts Stanley Roberts, Gets Caught by Cops

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Kevin J

    Why are the Board Supervisors so so completely obsessed with free parking they will put up every obsticle possible to protect it?

  • murphstahoe

    Scott Wiener with the first response to the appellant spent several minutes discussing how this appeal was *not* about the policy of free Sunday parking, but whether or not the implementation of free Sunday parking required a CEQA review. He made a very good point that the appellants argument – that a CEQA review was required because this reduces revenue – could just as easily apply to the free MUNI for low income youth program. Keeping the CEQA cudgel in play is probably to everyone’s detriment.

    He went on to say that MUNI is suffering because of bad decision making by politicians in that building – the Mayor, previous Mayors, and current and former Supervisors.

    They weren’t voting on free parking, they were voting on a legal argument about CEQA.

    From a short term policy perspective there might be value in upholding the appeal, but from a long term perspective the case was dubious and the boards (SFBOS and SFMTA) should focus on getting the policy right to begin with.

  • Greg Costikyan

    You have the Stanley Roberts link against the Sausalito headline, and a link to the Sausalito article against the Stanley Roberts headline.

  • Mario Tanev

    Frankly, I disagree with Wiener and this assessment.

    Free Muni for kids and lower fares have no negative environmental impact (in fact most likely positive), and can use several other exemptions (such as the common sense exemption). However, no other exemption could possibly apply to removing Sunday meters.

    The statutory exemptions are not dependent on whether there are environmental consequences for very specific reasons. The fares and fees exemption was added to allow agencies to balance their budgets. If that exemption didn’t exist, it would just lead to bankruptcy or some illegal action.

    So no, that’s a false equivalence, Murph. I realize, my argument hasn’t necessarily been tested in court yet, so I can see why a body already fearful of CEQA would be afraid.

  • murphstahoe

    The appeal kept the conversation open and raised the profile of the issue. If I were there for public comment I would probably have to say that I agree that we should not use CEQA in this manner but that I was very curious – given Wiener’s speech about how this vote is not about the policy what exactly is the position of the members on the policy, and if they disagree with it, what are they going to do about it in the future? Because nobody did anything about it.

    Note that Wiener brought up the specific example of the TIDF issue that would have brought a lot of money to MUNI, which he sponsored and lost 2-9.

  • aslevin

    Wiener got the VLF back on the table for 2016 – has anyone met with him with ideas to bring back Sunday metering?

  • murphstahoe

    There is a very simple idea to bring back Sunday metering. Defeat Ed Lee November 2015.

  • vcs

    CEQA has created an awful state of affairs in many ways, and has done very little to preserve the “environment”. But requiring an EIR for every parking meter change would be especially dystopian. (SFPark, for a positive example.)

  • Mario Tanev

    SFPark can be approved as a process that allows for changing of fees and fares based on concrete criteria. So no, it wouldn’t require every modification to go through an EIR. SFPark itself was a pilot and believe is going through an EIR right now.

    As for the negative consequences of CEQA, I don’t disagree. I know that a lot of our public officials operate in fear of CEQA. Almost all of that time it results in scaling back good programs like Polk St. It makes them think twice. They should be just as fearful when they institute a stupid program like abolishing Sunday meters. It should make them think twice. It would add balance.