Bicyclists expressed their outrage, politicians offered their support, and bureaucrats said they’d do what they could to speed up the slow-moving environmental work on the city’s Bicycle Plan, which a judge says the city must complete before making any bicycle system improvements.
But for those seeking near-term relief to a stalemate expected to last at least another year found little solace during yesterday’s Land Use Committee hearing on the latest Bike Plan delays. Instead, they were offered a culprit: the California Environmental Quality Act.
The 38-year-old law was the basis for the legal challenge that led to a court injunction against new bike projects, and all involved with the plan note how perverse it is for the state’s premier environmental law to be holding up efforts to promote bicycling, an unqualified environmental good.
“It’s truly ironic that an activity that is inherently environmentally friendly is being challenged under an environmental law,” Planning Director John Rahaim, who moved here from Seattle last year, said at the hearing.
Fixes such as LOS reform, which would change how the city gauges traffic impacts associated with projects such as the Bike Plan, were offered support by Rahaim and other top officials, but even that effort has become mired in the same kinds of exhaustive CEQA-based environmental reviews that have stalled bike projects.
“I couldn’t agree more with how poorly CEQA is interpreted in this city,” Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, who sponsored the legislation that got the Planning Department and Metropolitan Transportation Agency working on LOS reform, said at the hearing. “There needs to be uniform reform to LOS and CEQA.”
At a rally before the hearing, bicyclist advocates, business people and public health experts called for the city to do more.
“Mayor Gavin Newsom, we want to know what you’re going to do,” San Francisco Bicycle Coalition director Leah Shahum said shortly after Newsom wanted briskly past the gathering and into his TownCar without comment. “City Attorney Dennis Herrera, we want to know what you’re going to do. To the 11 members of the Board of Supervisors, we want to know what you’re going to do.”
Beyond their pledges of support, all of those named have offered little that will greatly accelerate the process, prompting some bicycle advocates to try to take matters into their own hands.
Bicycle Advisory Committee member Casey Allen and a group of bicyclists have been working on a third party intervention in the lawsuit, hoping Judge Peter Busch will be swayed by their argument that hazardous sections of town constitute an immediate public health threat that warrants dropping the injunction. Allen said they will file their motion to intervene next month after completing legal work on it.
“There are other strategies that we’re working on too,” Allen assured the crowd from the podium. “We ask citizens to become directly involved in this battle.”
Many bike activists are frustrated that the City Attorney’s Office didn’t appeal the ruling and injunction on the Bicycle Plan, except for a limited and partially successful effort to allow bike-related improvements to the some of the most dangerous intersections, such as Fell and Masonic Streets.
But City Attorney’s Office spokesperson Matt Dorsey told the Guardian that an unsuccessful appeal could have turned the limited ruling of one Republican judge into a statewide precedent that affected bike projects in each of California’s 58 counties.
“The danger is it risks writing bad caselaw where none existed before,” Dorsey said.
He disputed accusations that his office hasn’t made the injunction a high priority or that they’ve disregarded its impact to cyclists, saying they’ve worked hard on the case and are as frustrated by the verdict as anyone. But he said the problem is with CEQA, which doesn’t acknowledge the environmental benefits of bicycle projects and allows single plaintiffs such as Rob Anderson, who brought the case in SF, to tangle up projects for years.
“Dennis believes that if we’re really going to solve this problem, we have to work together…The injunction against the SF Bike Plan is the perfect example of what’s wrong with CEQA,” Dorsey said. “The real solution is in Sacramento. We need to reform CEQA.”
Yet until that happens or until the city can do legally defensible LOS reform or bicycle advocates can find some other way to end the injunction, San Francisco won’t see any bicycle improvements, which rally speakers said will hurt the city’s physical and economic health.
Mark Dwight, who founded Timbuk2, which makes popular bike messenger bags, and serves on the board of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said, “Bicycling is an economic stimulus for the city of San Francisco…Bicycling is increasingly important for San Francisco’s number one industry: tourism.”
Naomi Bardach, a pediatrician at San Francisco General Hospital and UCSF, said bicycling is an important activity both for exercise and air quality. “This means the Bike Plan has great potential to improve the health of the city’s kids and adults.”
Sup. Gerardo Sandoval, who called the hearing, praised bicyclists who combating air pollution, global warming, and traffic congestion. "You are doing such a good turn for the city," he said. "People who drive should absolutely love you."
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•



Comments (3)
What a crock! CEQA is a law. Lawyers are supposed to know the law and craft their advice to clients so as not to get snagged on the law.
The City Attorney did not properly advise its clients, Planning's office of Major Environmental Analysis, on how to thread the legal needle. Further, they advised everyone that they were going to prevail in court when all Anderson needed to do was raise a "fair argument" that an environmental impact was not being addressed.
The City Attorney's office tried to take a short cut and got busted. So instead of trying to submit a bare minimum EIR required to pass muster last year, they are now laboring under the notion that they must produce a comprehensive treatise on every project, every impact.
Many interim steps could have been taken between then and now which could have tested the waters at increasing levels of comprehensiveness which might have opened the door for quicker progress.
Herrera says, in effect, that his staff attorneys are incapable of navigating existing law, so he blames Sacramento for his own staff's poor legal advice. What we're seeing here is a City Attorney replacing recklessness with timidity--two undesirable extremes.
-marc
Posted by marc salomon | July 22, 2008 05:22 PM
One further thought on the City Attorney's office. Whenever the CA needs to act conservatively, it does so with impunity.
Herrera's office quashed a petition on Redevelopment that disenfranchised 33K San Franciscans, quashed the anti demolition ordinance that disenfranchised another 12K San Franciscans, prevented a discussion of a down town user fee for MUNI because his office claimed that it conflicted with state law, threw Terry Baum off the ballot on a technicality to kowtow to Nancy Pelosi, and, of course, found a way to challenge state law on same sex marriage when it was politically beneficial to his ambitions.
What appears to have happened here is that Herrera was pressured politically by the Mayor and Board to act contrary to state law, and was willing to do so because the only injured party would be cyclists, and we don't deserve the kind of protection from the City Attorney's office that Pelosi and developers do.
-marc
Posted by marc salomon | July 23, 2008 10:34 AM
So what the Guardian is saying is that its upset that people are being told what to think, has nayone read that idiot Tim Redmonds horseshit every month?
Posted by turtlehead | July 23, 2008 11:18 PM