Now the city of Ann Arbor has settled that lawsuit, accepting a range of requirements under the agreement.

Under terms of the settlement signed on Monday, the city has agreed to comply substantively with a request that one of the plaintiffs – The Great Lakes Environmental Law Center – had originally made over two months before the lawsuit was filed. That request was to conduct a study of environmental impacts associated with construction of the new underground parking structure, which is being built by the Downtown Development Authority.

The lawsuit settlement does not resolve the question of whether city councilmembers committed violations of the Open Meetings Act, when they communicated during their meetings via email about an agenda item related to approval of bonds for the parking structure.

However, the Ann Arbor city council is required by the settlement terms to discuss publicly, at one of their April 2010 meetings, the possibility of establishing a council rule that addresses which email accounts they use to conduct city business.

In the part of the lawsuit settlement that addresses the nuisance claims, the city must make various accommodations to ameliorate the impact of construction on neighboring properties. Those accommodations are primarily focused on providing adequate advance notice about specific construction events, and include 2-hour parking validation stickers for patrons to be provided by the city.

The settlement agreement does not require the city explicitly to make expenditures associated with any of the obligations that the city has agreed to meet, or to compensate any of the parties monetarily.

Backdrop to the settlement is an election-year political dynamic, which includes Steve Bean, chair of the city’s environmental commission, who’s now declared himself as an independent candidate for mayor of Ann Arbor. Bean was not a party to the lawsuit.

However, before the decision to issue bonds for the underground garage construction was made, he had argued unsuccessfully for the city to treat the construction of the parking garage as an environmental issue, calling for an environmental impact study to be completed before a decision was made. Elected officials, including mayor John Hieftje – who has now taken out petitions to run for mayor again – had resisted Bean’s call for an environmental study.

Construction on the underground structure has now begun. In settling the lawsuit, the city has agreed to undertake, after the fact, some of what Bean had asked them to do before they started.

Background material includes:

• the text of the lawsuit’s complaint
• the text of the settlement agreement
• Chronicle coverage: “City to Face Environmental Lawsuit?“
• Chronicle coverage: “Parking Deck Pre-Tensioned with Lawsuit“
• May 14, 2009 Great Lakes Environmental Law Center letter
• May 29, 2009 Great Lakes Environmental Law Center letter

Background: Environmental Issues

Part of the lawsuit and the settlement involve environmental issues. The key piece of legislation is the Michigan Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibits activity that is “likely to pollute, impair, or destroy” the environment unless “there is no feasible and prudent alternative.”

In its May 14, 2009 letter to the city council, the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center (GLELC) pointed to the MEPA and contended that:

For the City of Ann Arbor to ensure that it is in full compliance with the MEPA and not polluting, impairing, or destroying Michigan’s environment, it must engage in a thorough, thoughtful, and public process to identify and understand any potential environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed new parking structure.

The letter, sent on behalf of several parties – including the Natural Resources Defense Council – outlined what that public process should look like, from which we extract the bullet points:

• Identification and Evaluation of the Purpose and Need of the Proposed New Parking Structure
• Evaluation and Requirement of Alternatives to the Proposed New Parking Structure
• Evaluation and Requirement of Steps to Minimize the Impacts of the Proposed New Parking Structure
• Open and Public Process

The letter also cites Feb. 16, 2009 email correspondence from Steve Bean to the city council and the mayor. GLELC’s letter points out that Bean was writing as a private citizen, not as chair of the environmental commission, because that body was not asked to evaluate the project from an environmental point of view. In part, that correspondence from Bean reads as follows:

I’m writing to ask that you

- postpone action on the proposed underground parking structure at the “library lot”,

- request a comprehensive presentation by the DDA on its parking availability data for the structures as well as on its parking demand management efforts, and

- perform a more extensive analysis of the presumed need for the structure and possible alternatives before approving its construction.

I believe that a delay is fully justified given the state of the economy, the upcoming addition of several hundred new parking spaces elsewhere downtown, the incomplete implementation of alternatives for managing peak parking demand, the lack of consideration of environmental impacts (such as greenhouse gas emissions) from increasing parking supply, and the likelihood of a permanent decrease in parking demand early in the lifetime of the proposed structure. (The last two might seem contradictory, but any increase in emissions, no matter how short-lived, would be very detrimental.)

In a follow-up letter sent by GLELC to the city attorney and to legal counsel for the DDA on May 29, 2009, also signed by Natural Resources Defense Council, the proposed remedy to address the requirements of the MEPA are listed out as follows:

1. Working with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA), identify
and inventory all actual and anticipated changes in the City’s public parking in the
downtown area [...]

2. Working with the DDA, implement a “formalized process for determining when new [parking] supply is needed” as recommended in the Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study [...]

3. Working with the DDA and its consultants (ideally Nelson\Nygaard given their expertise and previous work with Ann Arbor’s downtown parking and transportation data and planning), conduct a preliminary study to predict if the proposed new parking structure will impact VMT in the City of Ann Arbor and southeast Michigan region. [...]

4. Allocate an additional $1.5 million per year for the next 5 fiscal years from the DDA’s parking revenues for alternative transportation and transportation demand management measures, to implement “toolbox” recommendations from the 2007 parking study. [...]

5. Working with the DDA, mitigate to the extent feasible pollution and other environmental impacts during construction using measures that include the use of low sulfur fuels and particulate traps on diesel equipment, storm water management, and dust suppression. [...]

6. To partially address the impact of increased traffic to and from the proposed new parking structure and the impact of significant new parking availability at this location on the environment and character of the nearby Germantown neighborhood, [...]

Settlement: Environmental Issues

The lawsuit’s settlement agreement signed on Monday does not include the allocation of any money for alternative transportation measures as suggested under point (4) of the May 29 letter. However, the settlement agreement requires the city to implement a process that reflects (1) and (3) of that letter and echoes the sentiments expressed by Bean in his attempts to convince the council to delay a decision in order to conduct a study.

The settlement agreement text outlines the requirements the city must meet in undertaking a study:

Step 1. The New Study will list all decisions regarding public parking that have  been made by the DDA or the City after the 2007 Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study (the  “2007 Study”) data were gathered but on or before January 31, 2010, and determine the difference in the overall number of public parking spaces available in Ann Arbor in 2011  (assuming the new garage is completed in 2011, and without regard to the effect of any decisions  that may be made after January 31, 2010) compared to the 2007 Study level. If the difference is  a net increase of 100 or fewer public parking spaces, then the New Study will be deemed to be complete. If the difference is a net increase exceeding 100 spaces, then the New Study shall continue to Step 2.

Step 2. The New Study shall estimate the expected number of cars seeking public  parking in 2011. If parking demand is expected to decrease from the 2007 Study level, the New  Study will be deemed to be complete.

Step 3. The New Study shall estimate how many of the additional cars could be  accommodated by the net increase in the number of spaces determined in Step 1, except that the maximum number of spaces evaluated shall be the number of spaces in the new parking structure. That figure will then be multiplied by an estimate of the additional vehicle miles traveled (likely from the 2007 Study regarding vehicle miles traveled by users of the parking  system). An emissions factor will then be applied to the number of vehicle miles to estimate the  greenhouse gas emission impact from net additional vehicles that could be accommodated by the  parking structure. It is understood that the 2007 Study’s survey had insufficient sampling and insufficient statistical power to generate the additional vehicle miles traveled, and therefore, the New Study will be an educated guess with significant uncertainty, and not a scientific determination of such emissions. At the sole discretion of the City, the New Study may use an emissions factor that is the same or different from the one used in the 2007 Study, and may consider any new information to supplement the survey data from the 2007 Study regarding vehicle miles traveled by users of the parking system.

Step 4. The New Study will identify new measures, policies, and actions that may  mitigate any estimated greenhouse gas impact (if any) of the additional cars seeking public  parking that can be accommodated by the new parking structure. This may include new  measures, policies, and actions to offset and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in furtherance of the City’s resolution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20% from 2000 levels by 2015. However, nothing in this Agreement requires the City or the DDA to implement any measure, policy, or action identified in the New Study or obligates or restricts the City or the DDA in any  manner other than is described in this Settlement Agreement.

Step 5. An opportunity for public participation will occur prior to the New Study being finalized. That participation shall consist of a minimum of one public hearing (which may  be satisfied by a televised public meeting of the Environmental Commission at which there is an  opportunity for public comment), and one opportunity to submit written comments.

If the net increase in parking spaces is less than 100, it would allow for quick dispatch of the study requirement at Step 1. While that would eliminate some subsequent steps, it would call into question the financing plan for the project’s bond repayments, which assumed a combination of increased parking rates and increased parking inventory.

The city council passed a resolution at its July 6, 2009 meeting that commits the city eventually to establish the surface parking lot at First & William, which has 108 spaces, as a park. However, that future reduction will not be countable as a reduction in the net available parking for purposes of the settlement agreement’s “New Study” – unless that conversion of the First & William lot to a park can be shown to be expected by 2011. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "First & William to Become a Greenway?"]

Also part of the assumptions underpinning the financing plan for the bond repayments is the idea that demand for parking will not decrease – either as a result of higher rates or other factors – but will continue to be commensurate with the parking available in the system after construction of the underground parking garage. This assumption is addressed in Step 2, which deems the new study to be complete if it’s shown that demand for parking is expected to decrease. Again, while this would satisfy the requirement of the settlement agreement, it would raise questions about the viability of a financing plan that is dependent on stable or increasing demand for parking.

After “completion” of the study in Steps 1-4, the settlement agreement requires a Step 5 – a public hearing – before the study is “finalized.”

The settlement agreement also does not require the city to engage the services of a consultant, as suggested in the May 29, 2009 letter sent by GLELC. Rather, the agreement specifies that it’s “the City’s environmental staff, working with [Downtown Development Authority] DDA staff” who will conduct the study.

The settlement agreement explicitly rejects the implication that the city of Ann Arbor must undertake environmental impact studies for other building projects:

Nothing in this Agreement shall mean that the City has any obligation to conduct any environmental study for any other building project, or that the City is required under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act or any other environment act to conduct any similar environmental study for any other building project.

The city is, however, conducting an environmental assessment in connection with the Fuller Road Station, which in Phase I consists of a parking structure and a bus station. The memorandum of understanding on the project between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan makes clear that the environmental assessment is related to its hope that federal funding can be obtained:

The City will conduct an Environmental Assessment consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, at its expense and for its sole benefit, to enable federal funding of Fuller Road Station.

Background: OMA and FOIA Issues

Part of the complaint in the lawsuit alleges that the city violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because “[u]pon information and belief, much of the material exempted from GLELC’s FOIA requests were disclosed as part of a similar FOIA request submitted by The Ann Arbor Chronicle.”

The complaint also alleged that the city council violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) in the course of exchanging emails unseen at the time by the public during council’s Feb. 17, 2009 meeting. Some of the emails exchanged by councilmembers addressed the subject of postponement of a vote on the parking structure bonds.

The Chronicle published an opinion column on Oct. 1, 2009 that analyzed why such email exchanges are violations of the OMA, regardless of whether a quorum of councilmembers participated in them. That position is aligned with the Attorney General’s OMA Handbook, which states:

… e-mail, texting, or other forms of electronic communications among members of a  board or commission during the course of an open meeting that constitutes deliberations toward decision-making or actual decisions violates the OMA, since it is in effect a “closed” session.

The publication of the opinion column ["When's an Open Meeting Open?"] prompted a phone call to The Chronicle from the city attorney, Stephen Postema, but he declined to speak on the record about the legal analysis presented in the column. Postema also refused a later request to be interviewed on the subject, and also declined an opportunity to be interviewed for this article.

Settlement: FOIA and OMA Issues

In the settlement agreement, the question of the alleged FOIA violation is resolved as part of the “recitations” as follows:

The parties recognize that the City has provided all documents (subject to permissible statutory exemptions) requested by the FOIA requests of the plaintiff Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.

The question of the OMA violations as a result of emails sent during council meetings, however, is essentially left open.

In the wake of the email scandal that had erupted the previous spring, at its Sept. 10, 2009 meeting, the city council approved a new council rule that requires email activity during meetings to be restricted to city business. Messages from councilmembers are required to go only to city staff – or other councilmembers, if the content is limited to draft amendments and resolutions. All such drafts are to be read aloud before discussion by the council.

At its  Sept. 21, 2009 meeting, the council approved a resolution requiring that emails sent and received by councilmembers during the meeting will be attached to the minutes of those meetings.

Under the current set of rules and resolutions on how city council meeting minutes are handled, it would be possible for councilmembers to use non-government accounts to send email messages, and thereby shield those communications from public view. Outside of their meetings, it is known to The Chronicle that councilmembers use non-government accounts to communicate with each other on topics of council business, and that the city of Ann Arbor does not produce records of such communications, even when those city records are responsive to requests made under the FOIA.

The settlement agreement requires the city council to contemplate their use of non-government email accounts on substantive council matters by considering the following amendment to their rules:

City Council members will use their City e-mail accounts when sending e-mail communications about substantive City business, to the extent feasible. This rule does not cover communication to constituents or residents or communication regarding political activity.

The settlement agreement does not require the council to adopt such a rule, but just to consider it at one or more of their April 2010 meetings.

Joining Hall as signatories to the letter are Henry L. Henderson (Natural Resources Defense Council), Stuart Batterman (environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan), David Yves Albouy (economics at the University of Michigan), Doug Cowherd (Sierra Club-Huron Valley Group), Tom Whitaker (Germantown Neighborhood Association), as well as two other Ann Arbor residents.

In an emailed response to The Chronicle reacting to a previous draft of Hall’s letter circulated two months ago (which covered substantially the same issues), Leigh Greden (Ward 3) stated: “A lawsuit alleging that the parking garage violates MEPA would be frivolous,” contending that the standard suggested by Hall would make any construction project non-compliant with the MEPA.

Still, based on background sources for The Chronicle,  the project has been slowed somewhat by the extra unknown of a lawsuit. We’ll track this dispute as it evolves, and will hopefully be able to gain some insight into any planned next steps from councilmembers at their Sunday night caucus.

Meanwhile, what exactly is the MEPA standard to which Hall appeals in his letter to the Ann Arbor city council? Two key aspects to consider in evaluating a MEPA claim are (i) standing, and (ii) cause. The first relates to those who are allowed to bring a suit in a MEPA case.

Legal Standing

In relevant part, the section from Michigan Compiled Law 324.1701 reads [emphasis added for readability]:

(1) The attorney general or any person may maintain an action in the circuit court having jurisdiction where the alleged violation occurred or is likely to occur for declaratory and equitable relief against any person for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction.

But in a July 25, 2007 Michigan Supreme Court decision, the court set a possible precedent for narrowing the set of possible plaintiffs in such cases, by applying traditional requirements for legal standing. That is, there must be an injury to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff’s injury must be different than the injury to the public at large. The 2007 case involved a water bottling plant operated by Nestlé Waters North America that threatened to lower the levels of two nearby lakes, a stream and three wetlands.

In that decision, the court ruled that the group filing the lawsuit could sue based on damages related to one of the lakes and the stream, because some members of the group owned property located directly on the lake and the stream. But because none of the group owned property on the second lake or any of the three wetlands, nor did they enjoy the direct benefit of those properties, the court said the group could not sue based on damage to those bodies of water, because the group lacked the legal standing to do so.

… the record below does not indicate that plaintiffs used or had access to these areas or that they enjoyed a recreational, aesthetic, or economic interest in them. Plaintiffs failed to establish that they have a substantial interest in these areas, detrimentally affected by Nestlé’s conduct, that is distinct from the interest of the general public. The absence of a concrete, particularized injury in fact is fatal to plaintiffs’ standing to bring a MEPA claim.

So while the MEPA itself appears to grant legal standing to anyone at all to bring a lawsuit based on “pollution, impairment, or destruction” of the environment, the precedent set by the 2007 case allows for some restriction on the range of people who can bring a lawsuit under the MEPA.

And that restriction depends on the relationship of the potential plaintiffs to the resource that is alleged to be in danger of “pollution, impairment, or destruction.” That relationship needs to be relatively direct: The court rejected an “interconnectedness” argument based on the entire planet’s hydrology, on pain of giving “anyone but a Martian” the standing to contest water withdrawals like Nestlé’s. It’s not enough, the court said in a previous case (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife), to use a resource in an area roughly “in the vicinity” of the jeopardized resource.

One resource identified in Hall’s letter as jeopardized by the planned Fifth Avenue underground parking structure is air – partly in the form of increased CO2 emissions from automobile emissions caused by motorists driving to and from the structure. So with respect to the issue of legal standing, one question on which a court might deliberate would be: Is there a party to the lawsuit who has a recreational, aesthetic, or economic interest in the air that is likely to be directly affected by the garage? A second question on which the court could deliberate with respect to legal standing would be whether the question of CO2 air pollution is sufficiently similar to water hydrology to reject any claim to standing based on the global warming phenomena.

With respect to the first question, the locations of the letter’s signatories’ homes could be germane: The geographic area of the Germantown Neighborhood Association abuts the same block on which the underground parking garage is to be built; Albouy, the UM economics professor, lives on the 300 block of South Division, directly adjacent to the proposed structure.

Hall’s letter indicates that CO2 emissions from automobiles are not the only source of environmental damage he might argue, should the case be litigated:

… the construction of a new parking structure of the size proposed will require a massive quantity of materials, including concrete and steel. The manufacture and synthesis of these construction materials require vast amounts of resources and energy, with associated pollution, impairment, and destruction of the natural environment.

The Case for Environmental Damage

Based on the space allocated to the topic in Hall’s letter, he’d likely place more emphasis on the the case for environmental damage from automobile CO2 emissions, than on destruction of resources associated with construction of the facility.

The line of reasoning for environmental damage based on CO2 emissions goes roughly like this: more vehicle miles traveled means more CO2 emissions, and more CO2 emissions translates into more global warming.

Once built, the underground parking structure – with 677 spaces in Phase I – will lead to increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the streets surrounding the structure that provide entrance and exit to the structure. The expected increase in VMT at those locations is reflected in two kinds of city documents: (i) in the site plan analysis done for the underground parking garage project by the city, which notes the expected increase in traffic surrounding the structure, and (ii) the financial plan analyzing the feasibility for issuing bonds to fund the structure, which assumes an overall increase in the number of vehicles using the Ann Arbor parking system downtown.

Part of the context of the VMT discussion is that an increase in VMT is counter to the city of Ann Arbor’s stated environmental goals. It’s also one of the areas of weakness identified in the city’s State of the Environment report. The number of per capita VMT has been trending upward from 2000 to 2005.

Does increased VMT lead to increased C02 emissions? For now, at least, Hall said in an interview with The Chronicle, increased VMT correlates with increased CO2 emissions. Until there’s a predominance of electric vehicles on the road, with batteries charged with solar arrays or windmills, more VMT means more CO2, he said.

What’s the significance of CO2, given that various natural processes emit CO2? At least the legal significance of CO2 could be affected by the April 17, 2009 proposed endangerment finding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is one) contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The EPA finding is “proposed” because it must now go through a public commentary phase.

It’s that proposed finding, together with a scientific consensus on global warming, that convinces Hall that the case he might bring would be easier to argue now than it would have been a year ago. Even considering that, Hall allows that it’s not an open-and-shut case. Otherwise put, it’s not about “routine enforcement,” but rather a new kind of case that could establish new precedents.

Defense and Settlement

Hall contends that either in advance of the parking garage construction – or as a defendant in an environmental lawsuit – the city of Ann Arbor needs “to engage in a thorough and objective evaluation of alternative ways to meet the defined need (for example, providing downtown Ann Arbor with transportation to support vibrant commerce).”

What is the defined need in this case? At the Feb. 17, 2009 city council meeting, the public commentary as well as council deliberations focused on symptoms that indicated a lack of sufficient parking. Those symptoms ranged from the anecdotal (complaints by potential patrons of downtown merchants about a lack of parking), to a parade example of a business that was reported to have relocated away from downtown Ann Arbor due to a lack of parking (Xoran Technologies), to some numbers on structure usage (84% capacity during peak periods) and excessive waiting times (greater than 30 days) to obtain a monthly permit.

The anecdotes will likely be familiar to readers of The Chronicle.

The example of Xoran Technologies was introduced at council’s Feb. 17 meeting during public commentary by Newcombe Clark, who works with Bluestone Realty Advisors, and who reported trying to negotiate a deal to provide 20 dedicated parking spaces for the growing company. Xoran, which makes advanced medical imaging equipment, will move from their current location at Miller and First in in the summer of 2009 to Pittsfield Township. At their current location, The Chronicle counted 53 spaces designated by signage for Xoran employees.

During council deliberations, Leigh Greden (Ward 3), who was involved in the attempt to negotiate the 20 additional spaces through the Downtown Development Authority, seemed to portray the Xoran decision as turning only on the 20 parking spaces. Based on a cursory inquiry by The Chronicle, it’s not clear who on Xoran’s part might have introduced a requirement or desire for the specific number of 20 additional parking spaces as a condition for staying downtown.

According to Jackie Vesitvich, head of communications for Xoran, with whom The Chronicle spoke by phone a few days after council’s Feb. 17 meeting, the company needed additional space in general. The company had been very interested in staying in the downtown Ann Arbor area, she said, because they loved being there – but the decision to move to their new Pittsfield location was based on the need for additional space, and specifically a particular configuration of office and warehouse space to accommodate their operation to FDA requirements. An extra 20 parking spaces, she allowed, would have been nice.

In an email sent to The Chronicle in response to an inquiry about the 20 spaces, Clark clarified that there were numerous “deal points” in addition to parking that led Xoran to decide to move to Pittsfield Township. However, he wrote, “All that is certain is that they had a strong desire to stay downtown and a very specific and small lack of parking was the stated reason at the time to look outside of the downtown.”

Asked at the podium during the Feb. 17 meeting what the usage numbers were for the parking system, Roger Hewitt, chair of the Downtown Development Authority’s operations committee, indicated that during peak periods the usage was at 84% of capacity, and that at 85% of capacity, there was already perception that a structure was full. [The DDA administers the city's parking structures and surface lots through Republic Parking. The organization's chair, Jennifer S. Hall, is married to Noah Hall.]

In light of the discussions and deliberations at council’s meeting, then, the need to add parking capacity by approving an underground structure was based on symptoms of a lack of parking capacity.

The parking study for Ann Arbor prepared for the city in 2007 by Nelson\Nygaard, a consulting firm, alludes to some of these symptoms in its final recommendations. With respect to permits, the study says:

6. Maintain sufficient parking supply to allow purchase of monthly parking access instrument on demand, or following a waiting period of no more than 30 days.

And with respect to the need to woo particular companies (like Xoran), the study says:

Coordinate on Economic Development Strategies: The recent Google deal (400 free parking permits offered to lure an influential employer to Downtown) points to the reality that parking access can play a major role in economic development. The City, the Chamber of Commerce, and the DDA should therefore meet early in the process of such deals to determine the potential volume of permits being discussed, the potential value returned to the City for providing this incentive, and to begin developing an approach that follows the established Downtown Parking Policy.

In a phone conversation on May 14, 2009, The Chronicle spoke with David Fields, principal with Nelson\Nygaard, about a basic approach to determining when to add capacity to a parking system. Although Fields worked on the Ann Arbor study, we were asking him to comment in complete generality, not to weigh in on the question of whether to build the underground parking garage at Fifth Avenue. And in that spirit, he suggested that every community will determine for itself how much parking it wants.

One possible step, he allowed, was to decide how much access to an area the community wanted to provide – that is, how many people did a community want to transport into and out of an area. From there, the community could decide what portion of that access was feasibly provided by various means: single occupancy vehicles, bus, rail, bicycle, etc.

In his letter, Hall argues essentially that the feasibility of providing access to downtown Ann Arbor through various other means besides the proposed underground parking garage needs to be analyzed by the city in order to defend against the prima facia case that the underground parking structure will damage the environment. That is, in response to the lawsuit that he might bring, Hall cites one allowable defense specified in the MEPA, which reads in relevant part:

The defendant may also show, by way of an affirmative defense, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to defendant’s conduct and that his or her conduct is consistent with the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in light of the state’s paramount concern for the protection of its natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction.

Settlement

When The Chronicle interviewed Hall, he suggested that a 2000 2008 case involving the Sierra Club and the city of Stockton, Calif. might provide a model for a settlement of the Ann Arbor case. There, the city of Stockton took two steps. They (i) set forth a whole range of plans to reduce CO2 emissions and vehicle miles traveled, and (ii) made a specific investment in bus rapid transit. Hall is not wed to the idea of bus rapid transit in particular, but says that it’s important to make some commitment to an initiative that the federal government is interested in helping to fund.

Hall notes there’s no federal stimulus money being offered for parking structures – because, he says, they’re totally out of line with what the Obama administration wants to do. The only part of the underground parking garage bond issuance that’s receiving matching funds from non-local sources, Hall points out, are the streetscape improvements (to enhance pedestrian experience) along Fifth and Division streets. For that project, the Michigan Department of Transportation has awarded a $1 million grant.

During the last couple of months, Mayor John Hieftje  has often made a somewhat similar point about federal versus local funding in connection with the East Stadium bridges. The city of Ann Arbor  would not want to issue bonds, or use the local street repair millage to repair the bridges, he has pointed out, because the state and federal government place a high enough value on such projects to offer funding for them.

Editorial Aside

Hall has lent to The Chronicle nearly 1,000 printed pages of material related to the underground parking structure obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the city of Ann Arbor. Some of that material includes email exchanges among city councilmembers made during their council deliberations. Hall’s letter mentions that material as possible Open Meetings Act violations. Having read through it, the content seems to fall into two categories: (i) adolescent humor, and (ii) apparent “backchannel” discussion of issues before the council, which raises more serious concerns.

We have arranged to have the material digitally scanned as images, and converted to text. To the extent that’s a successful arrangement, we’ll make the material available here on The Chronicle, and follow up as appropriate.