City Hall's war on cars continues

FROM:

Mary Miles (SB #230395)

Attorney at Law

San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 863-2310

for Coalition for Adequate Review

TO: 

Mohammed Nuru, Director

San Francisco Department of Public Works

Infrastructure Design and Construction

1680 Mission Street, 4th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103

PUBLIC COMMENT, DPW “PUBLIC WORKS HEARING,” or “DIRECTOR’S HEARING,” OCTOBER 11, 2019 ON “BETTER MARKET STREET” PROJECT

This is public comment on the “Director’s Order” scheduled for hearing on October 11, 2019, the above-numbered Agenda Item proposing to certify the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and other actions on the “Better Market Street Project" (“Project”). Please distribute this Comment to all staff conducting the hearing and place copies in all applicable files on the Project.

1. The Project is preempted under both the California and the U.S. Constitutions. The City may not close public streets or prohibit travel on public streets to travelers, including those using cars. (Rumford v. City of Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 545.)

2. The Project also violates CEQA, since it will have significant impacts on transportation on major arterials and neighborhood streets causing increased congestion as noted in numerous public comments (incorporated hereto by reference). The additional traffic congestion will also cause air quality impacts that are neither adequately analyzed nor mitigated.

Among others the Project will also have impacts on historic resources throughout the area by altering existing historic street lamps, other historic resources, and on natural resources by removing all of the existing London plane trees, affecting the character, habitat and environment of Market Street.

The Findings contained in the “Director’s Order” have not been circulated for public review, and falsely claim the Project’s significant impacts that are identified in the EIR cannot be mitigated. The “Order” states that the Project has already been or will be approved, with or without a public hearing.

3. City proposes significant federal funding requiring environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), which has not been done. City may not proceed with this Project or any part of it until it has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA.

4. The “Director’s Order” states that the Project will cost $610 million, and yet lists available (but apparently not approved) funding of $143 million. Where does the City propose to get the other hundreds of millions for this bicycle Project?

5. The Project is not a “pilot” Project and not exempt under CEQA Guidelines. City may not piecemeal environmental review by deferring analysis and mitigation of parts of the Project’s impacts or declaring parts of the Project “exempt” while claiming it has conducted environmental review of other parts of the Project.

Therefore, this Project may not be lawfully approved, and the proposed action must be rejected.