City Agency Hearings + Sheehy Legislation

Dear Readers,

We’re going to try to add in any legislation sponsored or co-sponsored by our District 8 Supervisor, Jeff Sheehy. Look for it below the agency hearings.


SFMTA Board of Directors meeting, Tuesday, July 18, 1 p.m., City Hall, room 400. (See full agenda here.)

  • P. ESTABLISH – STOP SIGN − Miguel Street, northbound, at Beacon Street.
  • 14. Adopting the Vehicle Sharing Parking Permit Policy to guide SFMTA’s vehicle sharing program; amending Transportation Code, Division II to make permanent existing On-Street Vehicle Sharing Parking Permit requirements, revise the definitions used for permit program terms, existing parking permit fees, and terms and conditions for the parking permit program.

(Explanatory documents include a staff report, resolution, policy and amendments.)
Link to staff report
Link to slide presentation
Link to Glen Park News story about on-street car share in Glen Park. Scroll to page 11.


SFMTA Policy and Governance Committee, Friday, July 21, 9 a.m., One South Van Ness, 7th floor. (See full agenda here.)

  • 6. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding update of the Vision Zero High Injury Network.

[NOTE: Portions of San Jose Avenue will be added under a revised definition of “High Injury Corridor” that now includes linked General Hospital data.]

See the presentation here.


SHEEHY LEGISLATION

SF Board of Supervisors, special meeting of the Budget and Finance Subcommittee, Tuesday, July 18, 10:30 a.m., City Hall, room 250. (See full agenda here.)

  • 170275 [Administrative Code – Establishing an Office of Cannabis and Extending the Term of the Cannabis State Legalization Task Force]
    Sponsors: Sheehy; Cohen

Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to establish an Office of Cannabis; to authorize the Director of the Office of Cannabis to issue permits to cannabis-related businesses; to direct the Director of the Office of Cannabis to collect permit application and annual license fees following the enactment of a subsequent ordinance establishing the amounts of those fees; and to extend the term of the Cannabis State Legalization Task Force.
(Fiscal Impact)

3/14/17; ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to the Rules Committee.
3/22/17; REFERRED TO DEPARTMENT.
6/6/17; SUBSTITUTED AND ASSIGNED to the Rules Committee.
6/8/17; REFERRED TO DEPARTMENT.
7/12/17; AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE.
7/12/17; REFERRED to the Budget and Finance Sub-Committee.

The Chair intends to entertain a motion to refer this item to the full Board as a Committee Report for consideration on July 18, 2017.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Hearings, SFMTA, Uncategorized

3 responses to “City Agency Hearings + Sheehy Legislation

  1. Tom Borden

    This proposed ordinance raises some troubling issues. See the text here:

    https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5302142&GUID=707482F4-55F9-40EC-A977-BA80982F0B8C

    1) Currently RPD Park Code citations are handled as Civil citations and revenue goes to the City’s general fund. (See the report referenced in #4 below.) This ordinance would classify littering in Dolores Park as an administrative citation and the fine revenue would go directly to RPD. Is this a portent of things to come? Will the park patrol become another profit center for RPD? (page 2 line 24 Also see SF Admin Code Chapter 100)

    2) Anyone littering in Dolores Park could be cited for both both a civil infraction and this administrative infraction and subject to a fine for each. (page 2 line 23)

    3) SF Admin Code, Chapter 100 lays out limits for the penalties. Such penalties are supposed to reflect the cost to the City, they are not supposed to be punitive, are only to reflect the damage done by the person receiving the citation and efforts by the violator to correct the violation are supposed to be considered. The $1000 ceiling set by the proposed ordinance is much higher than the standard administrative penalties of Chapter 100. Will RPD apply excessive fines?

    4) A policy analysis report requested by Supervisor Kim shows that RPD has been issuing about 2 citations per year for littering/dumping, probably none for Dolores Park. Why are we jumping to $1000 fines when we have not even tried $100 fines?

    http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/55154-Budget%20and%20Legislative%20Analyst%20Policy%20Report.%20Municipal%20Fines.%20February%209%2C%202016.pdf

    5) The park Patrol currently has no formal authority to issue citations for any Park Code violations and citations issued to date are invalid. (page 3 line 10)

    6) Getting Glass containers out of our parks seems like a good idea. However, while regular folks face the restriction, corporate groups and others paying for exclusive use of park facilities face no such prohibition. Vendors with a concession from RPD can distribute glass containers as well. Why does providing a revenue stream to RPD make it ok to use glass beverage containers in our parks? This seems like more RPD Pay-To-Play. (page 2 line 14)

    7) In 2015 RPD installed signs in Dolores prohibiting glass bottles. The intent was reasonable. However, there was no public process for this change. The regulation was created by virtue of park code 3.02:

    § 3.02. SIGNS TO BE OBEYED
    No person shall willfully disobey the notices, prohibitions or directions on any sign posted by the Recreation and Park Commission or the Recreation and Park Department.

    Via this code, RPD can create any regulation they choose, simply by putting up a sign. This involves no public process and there is no requirement to document the decision. Are 3.02 prohibitions valid? Can they stand up in court? Homeless advocates challenged 3.02 signage with a lawsuit that led to a Grand Jury investigation. The 2013 Grand Jury report included this,
    “Park Code Sec. 3.02, cited on these closure signs, mandates that “posted signs must be obeyed.” One S.F. employee stated that many signs are “non-enforceable” because closure times are posted even though they were not formally approved by Rec & Park resolution. This employee said that the department is aware of the questionable legality of the signs and intends to remove them.”
    Ultimately, this lawsuit led to the removal of the signs and the 2013 Scott Wiener park hours ordinance.

    Yet, RPD continues to wield 3.02 to create sweeping changes to our parks. The public does not know the coercive signage would probably not stand up in court. Examples of uncodified “regulations” that exist only by virtue of 3.02 are:

    -people are not allowed to bring bicycles into Natural Areas
    -public access in Natural Areas is limited to on-trail only
    -alcoholic beverages are not allowed in McLaren Park
    -glass bottles are not allowed in McLaren Park

    The process for the Dolores ordinance is the way our parks should be governed, in public, with real debate and documentation. Park Code 3.02 should be abolished.

  2. Thank you very much!! There are several items here that I would not have known about were it not for your coverage Heather. Much appreciated!! A

    Sent from my iPad

    >

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s