Bartha, Stephen From: Carsten Hohnke [chohnke@a2gov.org] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:12 PM To: Bartha, Stephen Subject: [Fwd: RE: South Fifth Avenue Parking Facility] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: South Fifth Avenue Parking Facility Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:16:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Noah Hall To: Hieftje, John , Hohnke, Carsten CC: Tim Fischer , Chris Kolb Sounds good, thanks. I understand from Stauder, Barch that the city has not yet authorized them to move forward with preparation of an official statement and sending out the book (I have not yet notified them of our legal concerns and potential for litigation, I simply checked on the status), so I think it would be fine for you and other city decision- makers to take a few days and think this over. Could you let me know by Thursday if you want to schedule an informal mediation on any of the dates I've suggested? In thinking a bit more about the concept and approach for environmental review that Carsten suggested, it seems that two basic questions that should be explored are: (1) the data from Nelson/Nygaard is now about two years old, and have the additional recommended measures that the city has taken since the study (parking demand management, better pedestrian and bike access, improved bus service) changed parking utilization rates up or down system-wide and for specific parking structures near the proposed facility; and (2) what other changes are expected for the city's parking supply (decrease or increase) within the next few years, as John said that the new structure would primarily replace existing parking that the city expects to lose in the future (and thus not increase vehicle miles driven in and to the city). Best, Noah ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:13:15 -0400 >From: "Hieftje, John" >Subject: RE: South Fifth Avenue Parking Facility >To: "Noah Hall" , "Hohnke, Carsten" >Cc: "Tim Fischer" , "Chris Kolb" > >Hi Noah: > > Thanks for writing. We will talk this over. > > > John > >-----Original Message----- >From: Noah Hall [mailto:nhall@wayne.edu] >Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:04 PM >To: Hieftje, John; Hohnke, Carsten >Cc: Tim Fischer; Chris Kolb 1 > > > >Noah Hall >nhall@wayne.edu >734-646-1400 > >Wayne State University Law School: >http://www.law.wayne.edu/faculty/bio.php?id=42998 > >Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center: >http://www.greatlakeslaw.org > >Great Lakes Law blog: >http://www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog/ Carsten Hohnke Ann Arbor City Council Fifth Ward chohnke@a2gov.org (734) 369-4464 4 financial >advisor for the bonds (Stauder, Barch and Associates), and underwriters, >etc. of our legal concerns and potential litigation for three weeks (May >1), if the city can make a similar commitment to not move forward with >bonding or other major actions on the proposed parking facility until >May 1. > >This three week window will give us the opportunity for an informal >mediation/discussion with the city's environmental attorneys before the >matter becomes unnecessarily contentious. If a complaint is filled and >the project is subject to litigation, the bonding would become more >difficult and costly, and perhaps limit the city's options to fund the >parking facility and/or other related transportation improvements. It >would be a shame to delay the project through litigation when there is >potential to reach a very positive solution (or perhaps we will simply >be persuaded that the project complies with MEPA and a lawsuit would be >a pointless delay) . > >I could be available for an informal mediation/discussion with the >city's environmental attorneys on any of' the following dates (assuming >the previously requested FOIA records are produced within the statutory >timeframe): April 23, April 24, April 27, April 28, April 29, April 30, >and May 1. > >While I am very excited about the potential for the Environmental >Commission facilitated study we discussed, I understand if the city does >not want to make any decisions about additional process and study until >we have further discussed the legal issues and the city can better >assess its legal liability and weigh the risks of litigation. > >Feel free to share this email with council members and other city >officials, and I look forward to your response regarding informal >mediation before initiating litigation. I've also attached a (slightly >revised) draft of our MEPA letter to help frame the issues for >mediation/discussion with the city's environmental attorneys. > >Best, >Noah > > 3 >Subject: South Fifth Avenue Parking Facility > >John, Carsten, and Chris- > >Thank you all for a very useful and productive meeting this morning. I >left the meeting far more optimistic that we could not only resolve this >without litigation, but that the city could reinforce its reputation as >a green leader in land use, climate change, and transportation policy >through Carsten's idea of studying how the proposed parking facility or >other actions would impact vehicle miles driven, etc. (I'm not phrasing >it nearly as well as Carston and Chris did, sorry). > >As we discussed, the city's own Environmental Commission would be an >ideal body to facilitate such a discussion and study, and if expertise >and financial resources are needed, I'm sure that MEC's staff, the >universities, etc. would be very excited to help the city. One of my >first questions about this project as it relates to MEPA is if it would >cause additional car trips and traffic to Ann Arbor, or simply redirect >people already driving and parking somewhere else to the new structure. >The study and process we discussed would answer this and many other >questions, perhaps not conclusively, but with better information and >analysis than we currently have. At a minimum, the oity would have a >much stronger record to support whatever decision it ultimately makes. > >Also, as we discussed, I'm very willing to engage in an informal >mediation/discussion with the city's environmental attorneys (and any >city council members that would like to participate, as John suggested). >We can explore the legal issues in a bit more depth and hopefully come >away with a better sense of what litigation would, or would not, >accomplish moving forward. I'm certainly not interested in litigating >just for the sake of it or to needlessly delay the city. So if the >city's environmental attorneys have looked into this matter and >concluded that the city is not violating MEPA through this project, I >would be interested in hearing their analysis. > >Because we discussed some very positive ways to move forward, after >consultation with our clients, I can make the following >offer: We will not initiate litigation or formally notify the city's >bond counsel for due diligence purposes (Dykema Gossett), 2