Posts Tagged ‘mary miles’

Oh My: Rob Anderson and Mary Miles Take Aim at the SFMTA’s Plans for Polk Street

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

This was the team that tied SFGov up in knots with an injunction for four long years.

They’re ba-aack:

FROM:
Mary Miles (SB #230395)
Attorney at Law
for Coalition for Adequate Review
San Francisco, CA 94102
TO:
Edward Reiskin, Director
Roberta Boomer, Board Secretary
and Members of the Board of Directors of the Municipal Transportation Agency
#1 South Van Ness Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
DATE: March 3, 2015
PUBLIC COMMENT, MTA BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2015, AGENDA ITEM 12 (“Polk Streetscape Project”)
This is Public Comment on Agenda Item 12, the “Polk Streetscape Project” (“Polk Project” or “the Project”), on the MTA Board’s March 3, 2015 Agenda. Under the Brown Act and CEQA, you are legally obligated to accept and consider this Comment and to place it in all public files on the Project. Therefore, please assure that this Comment has been distributed to all members of the MTA Board and placed in all applicable files on the Project.
The “categorical exemptions” invoked do not apply to the Project, and therefore you may not lawfully approve the Project or any part of it as proposed, since such approval will violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code §§21000 et seq.)
The Project proposes to reduce traffic and turning capacity on Polk and other Streets by eliminating existing parking lanes, reducing traffic lanes and installing obstructions to traffic flow and turning on this busy commercial corridor.
The unusual and highly inconvenient scheduling of this hearing before the MTA Board after 3:00 p.m., on a day with an extraordinarily long MTA Board Agenda shows the MTA Board’s contempt for the public and the significant impacts of the Project. The hearing should be continued to a date and time when the public can be heard without waiting hours for hearings on unrelated matters, and where the public’s comments will receive the Board’s full and serious attention. The hearing precludes public attendance by many people, including all those people who have to be at work. Combined with the short notice, that scheduling deprives the public of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the environmental review and administrative proceedings on the Project.
On January 15, 2015, the San Francisco Planning Department issued a “Certificate of Determination of Exemption from Environmental Review” (“Exemption”) claiming that the Project was categorically exempt under Classes 1, 2, and 4 of CEQA, invoking 14 Cal. Code Regs. [“Guidelines”] §§ 15301, 15302, and 15304. None of those categorical exemptions apply to this Project. Further, the significant cumulative impacts on traffic, transit, parking, loading, and air quality caused by the Van Ness BRT project one block away, and by the CPMC Project at Van Ness Avenue at Geary Boulevard, make the Polk Project not categorically exempt. (Guidelines §15300.2) Both of those Projects also present “unusual circumstances” precluding categorical exemption of the Polk Project.
1. The Polk Project Does Not Fit Within The Categorical Exemptions Invoked…

The Empire Strikes Back – Rob Anderson, Others Possibly on the Hook for $52K due to the Bike Plan Injunction

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

[UPDATE: Word comes from City Attorney Press Secretary Matt Dorsey. Yes, they’re looking for $52k:

“The City is seeking to recover its costs related to the preparation of the administrative record and excerpts of the record requested by the court.  We are also seeking to recover the costs we incurred in serving by messenger the attorney for the petitioner.  The recovery of these costs, which total $51,959, is authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure.  

Aggressively pursuing the fullest possible recovery of the City’s costs in litigation is a standard practice by the City Attorney’s Office.  (And I would assume that’s similarly true of other law offices, both public and private.)”

And here’s another update:

“We’re seeking to recover costs from the petitioners as a whole, so all of them.  Assuming we prevail, they can decide among themselves how to apportion what they owe.  

Also, we haven’t received a copy of it yet, but it appears from the docket that Ms. Miles filed a motion to strike the cost bill.  The hearing is set for January 7.”

So, there you have it.]

[Launching watermelons (two minutes long – there’s a nice payoff with a slo mo bonus) can be fun but it’s always best to quit while you’re ahead…]

I don’t know, I can’t say I understand all this about social gadfly Rob Anderson, or the Coalition for Adequate Review (CAR), or “Ninty-Nine Percent Anderson” or some other person or entity being on the hook for expenses incurred by the City and County of San Francisco because of the whole Bicyle Plan injunction/litigation thing.

But word on the street today is that S.F. is pressing the case to get $52k in legal costs reimbursed. It’s all explained on the Holier Than You blog.

See?  (I’ll tell you, physics majors who went to UC Hastings are known to be extremely reliable sources of information, so that’s why I’m buying all this.)

Anyway, appears as if this case will continue into 2011, believe it or not.

Here it is in black and white:

“AUG-19-2010 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS, $51,959.00 TOTAL COSTS, MATURE DATE SEP-10-2010, FILED BY DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”

“SEP-08-2010 NTC AND MOTION TO STRIKE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO TAX RESPONDENTS COXT CLAIM; MEMO OF P AND A; DECLARATION OF MARY MILES IN SUPPORT ; DECLARATION OF ROB ANDERSON, PROOF OF SERVICE FILED BY PETITIONER COALITION FOR ADEQUATE REVIEW NINTY-NINE PERCENT ANDERSON, ROB HEARING SET FOR JAN-07-2011 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 301.”

On It Goes…