►
From YouTube: San Bruno City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 7a. Amend and Readopt Title 7 (Vehicles and Traffic)
Description
San Bruno City Council Meeting July 27, 2021
7a. Amend and Readopt Title 7 (Vehicles and Traffic)
D
B
D
D
Our
primary
focus
is
to
update
them
for
internal
consistency
and
also
for
consistency
with
current
law
and
we've
had
a
variety
of
policy
discussions
for
those
revisions
and
so
far
we've
completed
titles
one
through
six.
So
tonight
is
title
seven,
so
title
seven
consists
of
fifteen
chapters
and
I'll
just
very
briefly,
go
through
them
and
what
we
plan
to
do
so.
7.04
there's
some
minor
amendments.
D
We
do
have
some
more
substantive
amendments
to
the
tspc,
we'll
talk
about
those
separately
and
similarly
to
the
city
traffic
engineer.
Actually,
those
amendments
in
those
two
sections
are
being
made
primarily
for
the
same
reason
that
we'll
discuss
a
7.16
stopping
standing
and
parking.
We
do
have
some
amendments
proposed.
D
D
We
do
have
some
substantive
amendments
and
we'll
talk
about
where
those
came
from
and
prior
city
council
direction
on
those
and
then
the
final
list
is.
We
have
some
amendments
to
vehicles
for
hire,
none
to
pedestrians,
some
amendments
to
bicycles
and
a
minor
amendment
to
skateboards
and
that
closes
out
with
enforcement
and
we're
not
proposing
any
amendments
to
those
at
this
time.
D
So,
let's
dive
in
and
talk
about
the
tspc
and
really
there
are
two
main
things
that
we
wanted
to
do
with.
The
amendments
is,
first
of
all
to
conform,
the
statement
of
who's,
a
member
of
the
tspc
to
current
and
and
best
practices.
The
code
is
really
obsolete
in
terms
of
it.
It
talks
about
staff,
members
and
other
people
being
members
of
the
committee
and
they're,
not
members
of
the
committee,
so
we've
just
cleaned
that
up
and
I
think
that's
fairly
fairly
clear.
D
But
there
is
at
least
a
there
is
staff
information,
expert
engineering
information
that
is
provided
as
part
of
their
recommendation,
and
the
tspc
is
of
course
free
to
make
a
different
recommendation
if
they
want
to,
but
the
way
that
the
the
code
was
written
it
it
sort
of
had
the
recommendations
going
in
in
the
wrong
direction.
I
guess
I
would
say
from
a
risk
management
standpoint,
so
the
experts
should
be
recommending
to
the
recommending
body
tspc
and
the
so
we
we've
just
tried
to
make
that
clear.
You
might,
you
might
ask
yourselves
well.
D
Why
is
that?
And
the
answer
is
explain,
sort
of
in
in
detail
of
the
staff
report,
which
is
the
city,
can
get
what's
called
design.
Immunity
for
accidents
that
occur
as
a
result
of
traffic
features
or
traffic
signs
or
traffic
markings,
and
that
design
immunity
means
that
that
somebody
who
might
be
injured
in
an
accident
at
the
intersection
can't
blame
the
city
for
the
accident
if
the
design
of
the
intersection
was
reasonable
when
it
was
approved.
D
There
are,
on
the
other
hand,
cases
in
which
cities
do
not
have
that
expert
opinion
or
do
not
clearly
have
that
expert
opinion
backing
up
their
design
and
those
cities
have
to
litigate
those
cases
they
they
go
to
trial
or
they
get
settled
for
for
a
lot
more
money
than
if
they
had
been
able
to
get
immunity.
So
those
are
really
the
main
changes
to
that
particular
chapter
and
then
going
right.
Along
with
that,
we
made
a
couple
of
changes.
D
In
7.16,
we
only
made
a
couple
of
minor
changes.
We
at
the
suggestion
of
the
police
chief
exempted
curbing
your
wheels
at
rolled
curves,
which
was
explained
to
me,
was
ineffective
at
stopping
the
car
from
from
rolling
down
or
up
the
hill.
I
didn't
actually
know
that
and
then
we
also
omitted
the
blanket
prohibition
on
for
sale,
signs
and
vehicles,
and
this
is
a
topic
that
does
frequently
come
up
where
there's
a
car,
or
maybe
multiple
cars
parked
on
the
street
with
for
sale
signs.
D
So
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
vexing
problem
to
solve,
but
the
place
to
solve
that
is
in
the
city,
sign
ordinance,
and
that
is
part
of
the
zoning
code
and
when
that
comes
up
I'll,
be
recommending
that
the
sign
ordinance
be
split
into
two
separate
sections,
one
section
that
covers
private
property.
In
other
words,
what
kind
of
sign
can
you
have
on
your
property
and
another
section
that
covers
public
property,
which
is
what
kinds
of
signs
can
individuals
put
up
on
on
our
streets
and
so
on?
D
So
moving
on
to
7.36.
This
is
an
important
section
that
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
previously
when
we
were
talking
about
title
v
and
you'll.
Remember
that
title
5
deals
with
nuisances
and
when
we
went
through
that
we
simultaneously
looked
at
7.36
and
we
told
you
that
what
we
were
going
to
do
was
once
you
decided
what
you
wanted
in
title
5.
We
would
then
make
sure
that
the
analogous
sections
at
7.36
were
conformed
to
that.
So
let
me
just
briefly
go
over
that.
D
So
this
relates
to
abandoned
or
inoperable
vehicles.
It
does
not
relate
to
the
parking
of
operable
vehicles
on
city
streets,
so
that's
sort
of
a
separate
topic.
These
are
abandoned
or
inoperable
vehicles,
so
in
title
five,
when
we
were
looking
at
that,
what
you
told
us
to
do
and
the
code
was
amended
accordingly,
was
you
wanted
us
to
prohibit
parking,
these
types
of
vehicles
abandoned
or
inoperable
ones,
unless
they're
fully
enclosed
and
not
visible,
and
so
those
changes
were
made
to
title
five.
D
You
also
wanted
to
clarify
the
definition
of
an
inoperable
vehicle
and
specifically,
that
inoperable
vehicles
included
vehicles
that
have
a
certificate
of
non-operation
from
the
dmv.
Just
because
the
dmv
says
they're
not
operable,
doesn't
mean
that
they're
registered
and
legal
and
don't
meet
this
definition
of
an
inoperable
vehicle,
so
that
change
was
also
made
in
7.36.
D
D
Addresses
so
along
those
lines,
we
have
recommended
that
this
particular
chapter
7.36
be
only
applicable
to
private
property
and
not
to
public
property,
and
you
might
wonder
well
that
seems
counterintuitive
why?
Why
would
that
be
well?
The
reason
for
that
is
because
all
of
the
procedures
that
are
in
title
7,
7.36
in
particular,
that
relate
to
the
removal
of
vehicles
relay
solely
to
removal
of
vehicles
from
private
property.
D
The
city
has
never
really
used,
at
least
as
I
understand
it,
title
vii
or
chapter
7.36-
to
tow
vehicles
from
public
property
that
is
abandoned
or
inoperable
vehicles
from
public
property.
So
let
me
give
you
an
example
of
that.
If
you
have
a
vehicle
that
is,
for
example,
lacking
current
registration
or
for
one
reason
or
another,
cannot
be
operated
on
a
public
street.
D
But
it
was
really
a
key
thing
that
did
come
up
in
some
litigation
with
the
city
and
we
were
able
to
successfully
explain
the
reasons
for
why
it
was
written
the
way
it
was
written
to
the
court.
But
we
would
have
been
much
happier
not
having
had
to
explain
it
in
the
first
place,
and
this
is
an
issue
that
can
recur
time
and
again,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
cleaned
up
and
taken
care
of
at
7.36
when
we're
going
through
this.
D
So
we
do
have
a
couple
of
other
chapters
to
quickly
go
through
so
vehicles
for
hire,
I'm
actually
doing
something.
That
was
against
my
advice
previously,
which
was,
if
it's
not
broken,
don't
fix
it
even
if
it's
obsolete,
but
this
is
sort
of
broken
and
obsolete,
so
I
couldn't
resist
but
to
to
suggest
that
most
of
this
section
really
be
repealed,
so
the
city
does
not
regulate
taxi
cabs.
That's
all
this
section
talks
about.
We,
we
don't
regulate
them.
D
I
don't
know
that
we've
ever
regulated
them,
except
maybe
in
the
distant
past,
and
there's
really
no
reason
to
impose
an
obligation
on
staff
that
they're
either
not
doing
now
and
really
not
capable
of
doing
for
a
variety
of
reasons
and
importantly,
ride.
Sharing
services
like
uber
and
lyft
are
not
taxi
cabs
that
are
not
regulated
under
the
section.
They
don't
fall
into
the
definition
of
a
taxicab.
D
We
don't
require
uber
and
lyft
drivers
who
live
in
the
city
to
get
a
business
license.
If
you
want
to
do
that,
then
I
would
propose
amending
title
3
when
we
go
back
to
our
cleanups.
We
we're
keeping
a
list,
and
this
would
be
one
thing
that
we
might
wish
to
do
you.
We
cannot
require
all
uber
and
lyft
drivers,
regardless
of
domicile
to
obtain
a
business
license.
We
can
only
require
those
that
are
domiciled
in
the
city
to
do
that.
D
D
They
certainly
don't
want
to,
and
it
certainly
seems
like
a
bad
idea
to
do
that,
but
we
do
want
to
retain
the
definitions
which
includes
motorized
bicycles,
because
we
do,
I
believe,
want
to
retain
the
prohibition
against
riding
on
sidewalks.
That's
a
very
common
safety
ordinance
that
many
cities
have
and
we're
not
proposing
to
eliminate
that
as
part
of
the
repeal
one
question
that's
come
up
on.
This
is
well
what
about
those
bicycle
rental
companies
that
leave
their
bicycles
all
over
the
place,
and
you
know
the
city
had
a
brief
unfortunate
experience.
D
Some
of
those
entities
have
approached
cities
in
the
past,
not
our
city
but
other
cities
and
said
we'd
like
to
enter
an
agreement
with
you,
we'd
like
to
do
this
or
that
we'd
like
to
work
on
some
sort
of
regulatory
structure,
and
we
haven't
been
approached
and
we
can
certainly
command
these
regulations
if
and
when
that
occurs.
But
it's
probably
premature
to
do
it
now,
because
it's
solving
a
problem
that
we
don't.
D
So,
finally,
next
steps
is
to
review
the
proposed
amendments,
introduce
the
ordinance
if
you
don't
have
any
questions
or
wish
to
make
any
changes.
If
you
do,
let's
talk
about
them,
we
would
have
to
reintroduce
if
there
are
sort
of
major
substantive
changes
you
want
to
make,
but
if
just
minor
ones
we
can
probably
go
ahead
and
introduce
it
at
this
meeting
and
as
opposed
to
a
subsequent
meeting
and
then
otherwise.
On
that
schedule,
adoption
would
be
scheduled
for
the
24th
of
august
and
then
finally,
I
just
want
to
give
you
a
heads
up.
D
Title
10
is
going
to
be
scheduled
out
of
order.
That
is
out
of
numerical
order
for
that
same
meeting,
and
the
reason
for
that
is.
The
county
is
requesting
that
the
city
adopt
their
model,
ordinance
relating
to
food,
waste,
packaging
or
food
packaging,
and
so
a
bunch
of
cities
on
the
peninsula
are
doing
that.
D
A
staff
has
already
written
really
most
of
that
staff
report
and
that
ordinance,
the
county's
ordinance,
and
so
we
think
it'll
be
ready
to
come
at
that
meeting
and
there
are
actually
not
very
many
other
changes
that
we're
proposing
to
that
title.
So
we
thought
why
not
get
it
out
of
the
way
and
then,
if
that's
done,
then
we'll
only
have
three
more
titles
to
do.
Eight,
nine
and
eleven
before
we
go
back
for
the
cleanup.
A
E
E
C
C
That
would
be
the
first
one
and
then
the
second
one
is
section
7.08.040
d,
that's
page
4
or
132
in
the
packet,
and
I
I
really
don't
know
so.
This
is
really
a
question
and
we
have
some
former
committee
members
here,
but
should
we
also
broaden
it
to
recommendations,
not
just
the
city
council,
but
maybe
to
the
planning,
commission
or
even
park
and
rec?
C
Given
that
you
know,
we've
got
the
rack
being
built,
that's
going
to
be
a
busy
very
busy
street
at
some
point
and
then
the
planning
commission,
with
all
these
projects
coming.
Would
it
make
sense
to
broaden
it.
It
doesn't
mean
that
that's
going
to
be
the
process,
but
just
to
allow
for
that
possibility
of
the
committee
making
recommendations
to
either
commission
or
the
full
city
council.
C
C
C
There
was
an
addition
to
say
that
the
city
traffic
engineer
and
then
it
added
in
conjunction
with
the
police
department,
and
I
don't
have
a
a
problem
with
the
addition
I
just
wanted.
The
question
really
is
more
from
a
practical
perspective:
does
that
cause
any
administrative
slowdown
or
just
because
I
know
the
police
department
is
also
at
capacity,
so
that
was
my
only
question
there
and
then
should
I
stop
her
right.
D
Think
we
can,
I
can
address-
or
at
least
make
some
comments
about
all
of
those,
if
you
don't
mind
and
yeah
yeah
council
member
comments
on
those.
So
just
on
the
very
last
one
I
can
explain.
We
amended
that
in
collaboration
with
the
police
department
and
at
their
suggestion,
because
that's
actually
the
process
that
occurs
now
so
they
work
collaboratively
with
the
public
works
department
to
do
those
feed
surveys.
So
that
was
the
reason
for
that.
D
I'm
happy
to
answer
the
other
questions
or
at
least
provide
a
little
bit
of
of
information
about
them,
so
for
going
backwards
about
the
speed
bumps
so
I'll
defer,
maybe
to
the
public
works
department,
but
traffic
control
that
does
does
include
speed
bumps.
I
believe
I
there's
it's
a
broad,
certainly
a
broad
enough
category
to
include
any
sort
of
traffic
control
device
and
those
are
covered
in
the
manual
for
uniform
traffic
control
devices
that
I
think
we
talked
about,
and
I
see
that
our
city
public
works
interim
public
works
director
is
on
the
line.
B
Well,
I
might
need
to
go
get
a
traffic
engineering
degree.
I
believe
you
know
I
I'm
a
bit
hesitant
to
misspeak
as
well.
So
I
may
need
to
ask
her
a
traffic
engineer,
but
our
traffic
calming
program
does
include
speed,
humps
and
I'm
unclear
whether
it's
in
the
california
municipal,
the
mutcd
uniform
transportation
guide.
So
that
is
something
I
may
need
to
follow
up
on.
D
My
thought
would
be
we
can
check
with
the
traffic
engineer
and
if
it's
covered
to
not
put
it
in
because
then
somebody
would
wonder
why
didn't
you
put
the
other
27
things
in
that
you
know
are
also
covered,
but
if,
for
some
reason
it's
not,
we
can
consider
that
for
the
for
the
next
for
the
adoption,
and
then
do
you
mind
going
back
briefly
to
the
tsbc
duties.
I
do
have
just
a
couple
of
brief
comments
about
that
at
least
recommendations.
D
So
the
suggestion
to
make
recommendations
to
other
boards
and
commissions
that
are
not
deciding
bodies.
I
guess
I
would
offhand
recommend
against
that.
I
think,
for
a
couple
of
reasons,
I
think
it's
important
to
have
the
shortest
path
of
decision
making.
Then
I'm
sort
of
talking
from
a
risk
perspective.
D
But
if
you
have
these
sorts
of
decisions
going
through
multiple
bodies
in
the
city,
then
I
think
you
you
set
up
a
situation
in
which
the
members,
the
volunteer,
lay
people,
members
of
those
bodies,
are
are
subject
to
being
deposed
and
subject
to
being
asked.
Well.
Why
did
you
do
this?
And
what
about
this?
And
what
about
that?
It?
D
Just
really
muddies
the
record
tremendously:
it's
much
clearer
to
have
a
recommending
body
like
the
tspc
that
has
expert
staff
and
consultants,
making
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council,
because
ultimately,
the
city
council
is
the
one
that
that
needs
to
make
that
decision
and
that
that
decides
now.
There's
nothing
stopping
the
staff,
for
example,
to
provide
information
to
the
other
bodies
about
the
recommendations
of
the
tsbc,
and
I
think
they
they
often
do
that
when
it's
appropriate.
So
that
would
be
my
thought
about
that
one.
D
As
for
the
first
one,
I
actually
liked
your
suggestion,
and
I
would
only
reword
it
very
slightly
to
say
to
provide
a
forum
for
discussion
and
provide
recommendations
regarding
traffic
studies
and
reports,
and
maybe
that
was
what
you
said,
but
you
might
have
had
another
word
in
there.
But
but
I
think
that's
perfectly
fine
and
I
don't
think,
creates
a
a
risk
mitigation
situation
or
does
anything
that
you
know
is
against
the
purpose
of
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here.
So.
C
Yeah,
I
think
the
only,
but
what
I
had
said
was
that
would
provide
the
recommendation
prior
to
finalizing,
so
that
would
that
would
make
sure
that
we've
got
the
committee's
voice
in
before.
There
was
anything
final
going
to
the
commission
or
the
council,
which
I
still
think
I
still
feel
like.
We
should
say
that
because
it
would
require
the
committee
to
look
through,
and
this
is
the
commitment
that
the
council
has
determined
you
know-
should
be
providing
recommendations
on
this
exam.
These
exact
kinds
of
studies
and
reports.
D
I'll
defer
to
the
city
council
on
it,
I
think
that's
a
policy
decision
about
whether
you
want
the
tsbc
to
be
making
recommendations
before
any
traffic
studies
are
done
about
anything.
I
think
the
language
before
I
think
was
maybe
concerning,
which
is
why
I
recommended
what
I
did,
but
I
think
it's
a
policy
decision
for
the
city
council
or
to
defer
that
to
a
later
time,.
A
E
Was
on
that,
it
was
on
that
exact
topic.
I
mean
I
just
wanted
to
say.
Is
that
if
you
don't
mind
the
tspc,
we
didn't
you
know.
Obviously
we
did
not
pre-approve
and
pre-direct
all
traffic
studies.
However,
you
know,
usually
we
would
see
the
results
of
a
traffic
study
as
the
first
time.
That
would
be
it
would
be
an
item,
but
there
had
been
there
had
been
times
when
we
felt
that
the
the
traffic
study
was
not
comprehensive
enough.
E
A
C
C
7.16.150,
this
is
the
section
around
parking
in
excess
of
the
time
limit
prohibited,
and
it's
page
16
of
you
know
that
particular
report
or
page
144,
and
I'm
just
wondering
that,
should
we
be
clear
about
the
consequences
of
staying
longer
than
the
curb
markings
you
know
are
these
towed
and
when
are
they
towed
and
how
you
know
what's
up?
What's
that
process
look
like
and
then
I
just
have
three
more
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
finish,
and
then
chapter
7.18.
C
This
is
the
residential
parking
and
I
don't
think
this
one's
going
to
be
answered
tonight.
I
just
wanted
to
throw
out
a
suggestion
around
this,
which
is
really
to
reflect
on
whether
we
are
having
anybody
using
this
residential
parking
permit
program
and
understanding
that
this
is
not
agendized
tonight.
C
I
would
suggest-
and
this
is
page
25
or
153-
I
would
suggest-
adding
penningham
white
on
there
right
off
the
freeway.
I
don't
I
don't
know
how
these
streets
have
all
been
designated,
who
studied
them,
but
people
get
off
the
freeway
and
just
or
get
on
the
freeway
and
just
speed
down
that
street.
It's
really
dangerous.
C
The
next
one
is
section
7.24.050,
and
this
is
page
28
or
156,
and
this
is
the
regular
parking
of
other
large
vehicles
and
same
question
as
before.
What
is
the
enforcement
method
and,
and
should
we
should
we
have
that
in
you
know
in
the
in
that
particular
section,
and
I
believe
that
is
it.
Thank
you
so
much.
A
C
D
D
All
right,
oh-
and
he
might
also
be
able
to
have
an
answer
to
why?
Don't
we
include
cunningham
on
the
list?
I
think
that
those
are
going
to
require
a
speed
survey
to
include
them,
and
so
I
don't
think
we
can
include
them
now
because
there's
not
a
speed
survey,
but
if
there
were
one,
then
that
would
be
an
event.
If
I
can
let
him
answer
that,
and
I
see
that
he's
popping
on
right
now.
C
D
G
D
D
There's
a
fine
schedule,
that's
adopted
periodically
and
I
generally
recommend
not
putting
that
in
the
ordinance
because
then
otherwise,
every
time
the
penalty
or
the
enforcement
mechanism
changes,
you've
got
to
remember
to
go
back
and
amend
the
ordinance.
So
that
would
be
my
recommendation
and
you
know
the
chief
might
have
some
additional
thoughts
about
that.
G
No,
my
position
would
be
the
same.
I
think
that
it's,
it's
probably
not
at
least
in
my
own
opinion,
wise
to
include
enforcement
language,
especially
procedural
type
language,
about
how
enforcement
occurs
within
the
ordinance
itself,
because
it
changes
from
time
to
time
based
not
only
upon
the
law
but
based
upon
department,
capabilities
and
needs.
C
C
I
guess
throughout
so
for
example,
how
do
we
know
that
in
one
area
cars
may
get
towed
in
another
area
they
may
not
get
towed,
or
does
it
just
have
to
do
with
capacity
and
they're
all
the
same?
Does
it
have
to
do
with
the
day
if
it's
a
holiday
versus
not
holiday,
because
this
is
a
common?
I
think
this
is
a
pretty
common
complaint.
Is
around
people
who
stay
past
the
time
frame
that
they're
supposed
to
be
parked
in
any
given
space.
G
G
If
the
question,
however,
is
more
pertaining
to
whether
or
not
this
code
should
stipulate
exactly
where
enforcement
should
or
should
not
occur,
I
would
defer
to
the
city
attorney
and
to
counsel
for
that.
I
think
that
that's
a
different
question
than
if
we're
looking
for
hey,
where
is
it
actually
occurring
versus
where,
where
should
it
be
legally
permitted
to
occur?.
C
C
What
is
the
enforcement
mechanism
and
how
does
somebody
know
who's
the
owner
of
the
car
that
their
car
might
be
towed,
and
I
know-
and
I
know
in
some
locations
not
just
in
san
bruno-
but
you
know,
officers
will
go
kind
of
above
and
beyond
knock
on
doors.
Is
this
your
car?
We
don't
want
to
tow
it,
the
toe's
very
expensive.
C
A
I
mean
if
it's,
if
it's,
if
it's
hold
on
yeah,
if
it
is,
you
know
like,
let's
run
the
plate,
you
know
they
have
the
time
they
run
the
plate
and
they
go
it's
rico
and
he
lives
over
here
and
they
knock
on
the
door.
That's
that's
a
gracious
customer
service
and
a
nice
thing,
and
I
have
heard
that
folks
have
done
that,
but
I
think
it's
very
situational
and
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
chief
is
you're
kind
of
wanting
it
quantified
verbatim,
which
then
kind
of
doesn't.
A
C
And
I
think
again
just
to
be
clear,
not
not
the
emergency
situation.
I
would
hope
the
city
would
take
that
risk
and
say:
we've
got
to
tell
the
car
if
someone's
life
is
in
danger.
I
think
it's
more
the
common
question:
we've
got
all
these
people
who
are
taking
a
flight
out
and
they're
parking
in
front
of
my
house
and
they're
surpassing
the
time
frame.
We've
got
people
staying
at
airbnbs
that
are
renting
a
house
nearby.
C
They
are
not
moving
their
car,
I
mean
those
are
more
common
and
more
typical,
and
so
when
I
hear
the
frustrations
it's
you
want
to
go,
look
at
the
ordinance
and
say
well,
the
ordinance
says
it's,
you
know
72
hours,
and
so
what
happens
after
72
hours,
and
so
I
think
it's
like
can.
What
is
the
clarity
given
to
the
public
and
to
staff
to
say
this
is
and
and
to
the
police
department
too
to
say
this
is
what
we
need
to
be
able
to
do
our
jobs.
How
can
we
help
with
that?
A
Yeah
and
now
now
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
say:
you're
talking
about
a
seven
to
two
hour,
people
that
are
not
happy
with
folks
that
are
parked
within
their
neighborhoods
streets
and
taking
up
parking,
whether
they're,
an
sfo
or
whether,
whatever
they're
doing-
and
I
know,
there's
procedure
to
that
in
process,
and
maybe
even
or
attorney
can
chime
in
at
this
point.
Thanks
for
that
that
helps
clear
up
what
you
were
trying
to
go
to.
G
Yeah,
I
think
that
for
what
it's
worth,
I
better
understand
the
question
now
and
really
it's
quite
specific,
actually
to
72-hour
ordinance
because
other
time
parking
ordinances
are
are
very
different
in
nature.
When
you
talk
about
a
five-hour
parking
lot,
for
example,
or
a
two-hour
spot
downtown,
those
are
very
different
in
terms
of
the
enforcement
posture
and
the
procedure
than
the
72-hour
violations,
so
the
the
72-hour
violation
I
can
just
tell
you
in
practice-
is
only
enforced
at
this
point
in
time
on
a
complaint
basis.
G
That
is
largely
a
because
that's
how
most
cities
do
it.
The
the
spirit
of
the
72-hour
ordinance
is
to
avoid
abandoning
vehicles
in
neighborhoods
and
to
give
the
police
department
the
teeth
to
remove
those
vehicles
in
order
to
keep
from
the
blight
in
the
community,
and
so
we
respond
to
them
on
a
complaint
basis.
G
There
is
a
fairly
definitive
procedure
for
that
in
terms
of
what
we
do
each
time
that
happens,
because
we
can't
just
take
a
resident's
word
for
it
that
a
vehicle's
been
there
for
72
hours
once
they
tell
us,
it's
been
there
72
hours.
We
then,
by
law,
have
to
complete
some
procedural
steps
to
ensure
that
it
has
in
fact
been
there
for
72
hours
before
we
can
complete
a
tow
and
that
it
doesn't
move
at
least
a
tenth
of
a
mile
during
that
time
frame.
G
G
We
come
back
and
check
on
it
periodically
to
ensure
that
it
goes
at
least
72
hours
from
then
and
then
we'll
come
back
out
and
take
it
and
or
tow
the
vehicle,
depending
upon
the
circumstances.
Now,
as
far
as
knocking
on
doors,
that
is
our
typical
procedure,
not
because
it's
required
by
statute,
but
because
that's
the
kind
of
police
department
we
are
if
the
vehicle
comes
back,
registered
to
a
local
resident,
because
again,
the
spirit
of
this
ordinance
being
there
to
avoid
abandoned
vehicles.
G
Oftentimes
these
vehicles
are
called
in
simply
because
a
resident
doesn't
like
that.
A
neighbor
has
parked
in
front
of
their
house
instead
of
in
front
of
their
own
home,
and
so
rather
than
engage
in
the
time
requirements.
You
know
that
that
exists
in
order
to
go
and
mark
the
tires
and
issue
the
warning
notice
and
enter
it
into
the
computer
system
and
go
back
out
and
check
it.
We
will
often
knock
on
that
residence
door.
Say
hey.
You
know,
we've
got
some
complaints
about
your
vehicle,
not
moving
in
72
hours.
G
Again,
my
position
would
be
that
there
is
nowhere
to
my
knowledge,
anywhere
in
penal
code,
vehicle
code,
health
and
safety
code,
or
typically,
even
in
a
municipal
code.
That
would
spell
out,
in
that
kind
of
detail
the
procedural
process
for
conducting
enforcement,
and
I
think
that
there
is
plenty
of
good
reason
for
that,
most
of
which
is
probably
better
spoken
to
by
the
city
attorney
than
me.
D
Right,
I
would
agree
with
that.
I
think
that
those
procedures
are
often
dependent,
as
the
chief
indicated
on
resources
on
priorities.
Those
priorities
can
change.
It's
just
not
a
good
idea
to
either
hamstring
the
police
department
and
require
them
to
do
things
that
now
a
different
city
council
might
wish
that
they
not
do,
or
vice
versa.
D
So
the
enforcement
of
these
ordinances
is
left
to
the
policy-making
decisions
of
the
city
council,
based
on
resources
and
the
discretion
of
the
police
department,
and
if,
if
you,
the
city
council
would
like
to
direct
something
different,
then
you're
certainly
free
to
do
that,
but
I
generally
don't
recommend
that
that
be
spelled
out
in
the
ordinance
and
it's
not
really
anywhere
spelled
out
in
any
of
our
ordinances.
For
that
reason,.
C
C
So
if
there
is
a
recommendation
by
the
police
department
who's
providing
the
citations
to
the
council
to
make
adjustments
or
tweaks,
then
then
I
would
definitely.
You
know
recommend
that
the
council
take
a
look
at
those,
because
you
know,
if
there's
anything,
that
we
can
do
to
mitigate
this
problem
by
assisting
you
with
policy,
then
that's
really
our
place
and
that's
where
I
think
we
can
help
the
most.
C
A
Attorney
and
city
and
chief,
I'm
sorry,
city,
chief
and
city
attorney,
my
my
understanding
and
please
for
for
council
and
myself
when
you
are
looking
at
these
titles,
and
sometimes
you
have
to
go
with
the
pace
of
other
departments,
because
they're
interwoven
into
the
action
ie
title
seven
is
not
do
not
meet
with
other
department
heads
or
in
this
case
the
police
chief.
In
regards
to
reviewing
thoughts,
ideas,
cleanup
language,
etcetera,.
D
D
I
I
would
actually
say
that
if
there
is
going
to
be
a
policy
discussion
about
enforcement
of
ordinances,
that
that's
actually
not
a
discussion
about
the
ordinance,
it's
a
discussion
about
enforcement
and
I
think
that's
really,
as
I
think,
councilmember
mason
you
indicated-
might
be
best
left
for
for
a
different
time,
because
the
the
ordinance
itself
doesn't
specify.
You
know
how
exactly
how
it's
enforced
for
it
for
reasons
that
we
discuss.
C
B
B
What
I
think
this
discussion
it
would
really
be
about
is
if,
if
there's
a
desire
to
have
a
different
operational
model
about
how
the
72-hour
rule
is
enforced,
what
is
that?
What
does
that
cost?
What
level
of
positions
and
if
it
doesn't
have
to
be
an
officer,
and
we
we
know
that
we're
under
resourced
on
officers
and
our
officers,
but
either
now
or
if
we
had
a
few
more,
would
be
responding
to
radio
calls
and
that
and
that
would
always
take
more
priority
than
doing
the
proactive,
72-hour
enforcement.
B
B
B
I
I
I
think
we
have
to
figure
out
how
to
do
that
with
the
city
manager
and
the
knowledge
that
we
are
extremely
busy,
and
this
wasn't
a
strategic
initiative.
How
do
we
work
around
that
right?
So
perhaps
a
we
can
ask
for
an
ad
hoc
committee
at
a
later
time
being
that
this
business
here
is
to
proceed
and
and
get
these
revisions
done.
I'm
in
favor
of
that
my
new
question
and
the
city
attorney
did
mention.
B
If
the,
if
the
youtube
drivers
we
can
require
them
to
get
a
business
license
if
they
reside
in
our
city,
then
why
wouldn't
we
do
that?
And
if
we
got
50
compliance,
then
that
was
50
of
the
revenue
we're
not
going
to
actively
target
people
that
don't
get
business
licenses?
At
least
I
don't
think
we
we
would
so
that's
my
question
for
the
city
attorney.
If
we
can
legally
require
that
it,
then
why
wouldn't
we.
D
A
E
E
You
know
for
a
practical
standpoint,
the
72-hour
rule
the
way
that
it
gets
the
way
that
it
gets
enforced
and
again
we're
following
the
law
and
that's
why
it
gets
enforced.
This
way
is
that
I
look
out
my
window.
I
see
a
car
sitting.
There
that's
been
there
for
three
days.
I
call
they
come
and
chalk
it.
They
wait
three
more
days
and
then
then
they'll
get
a
ticket.
So
it's
there
for
six
or
up
to
six,
but
it's
unfortunate,
but
I
don't
know
what
we
can
do
to
get
her
to
get
around
it.
E
If
there
was
a
recommendation
that
we
could
make
to
the
org
to
the
ordinance
to
give
the
the
the
police
more
teeth
to
be
able
to
enforce
those
types
of
things,
I'd
be
all
for
it,
and
I
just
I
would
echo
council
member
mason's
suggestion
that
we
think
out
of
the
box
if
possible.
I
understand
if
it's
completely
hamstrung,
but
it
was
something
that
I
think
we
should.
We
should
keep
our
minds
open
to
because
it
is
a
big
problem.
D
You
know.
We've
talked
about
this
extensively
before.
Unfortunately,
this
is
not
the
you
know.
The
legislature
is
busy
trying
to
find
ways
to
stop
cities
from
enforcing
this,
because
they
believe
that
towing
these
vehicles
represents
a
forfeiture
to
people
of
fewer
economic
means
that
it's
extremely
expensive
to
get
your
car
out
of
out
of
the
tow
yard.
You
lose
your
car
for
days.
If
not
weeks,
people
can't
go
to
work.
They
can't
go
to
the
doctors
anyway.
D
There's
a
whole
host
of
reasons
that
make
it
very
challenging
to
even
provide
those
additional
tools
beyond
the
sorts
of
operational
decisions
to
say,
let's
just
make
sure
that
we're
catching
more
of
the
violators
in
the
way
that
we
catch
them
now,
as
opposed
to
coming
up
with
with
some
different,
totally
different
mechanism
to
it,
to
enforce
the
law
which
both
the
courts
and
the
legislature
are
saying.
Really,
cities
should
not
be
aggressively
enforcing
for
all
those
reasons.
A
F
I
do
believe,
as
council
member
hamilton
alluded
to
pretty
much
bumps
up
against
the
limits
that
we
have
that
are
set
by
the
state
and-
and
we
definitely
well.
I
agree
it
is
a
problem,
and
it
is
something
I
hear
about
a
lot.
It's
not
something
that
we
want
to
try
to
legislate
and
also
directing
the
police
department
on
how
to
enforce
her.
F
I
I
think
that
would
be
also
a
dangerous
position
for
us
to
try
to
take
it
this
time
and
within
all
that
also,
you
know
we
alluded
to
what's
happened
with
the
residential
parking
permit
program,
and
that
really
was
intended
to
be
the
solution
to
getting
us
past.
Just
the
72-hour
rule
and
having
people
call
in
and
neighborhoods
that
were
severely
impacted.
Would
have
that
tool
available
to
them?
F
You
know.
Currently,
I'm
I'm
working
two
days
a
week
in
the
office
and
the
rest
of
the
days
I'm
at
home.
My
car
sits
in
front
of
my
house
four
days
a
week
and
I
certainly
wouldn't
want
anyone
coming
around
and
scanning
my
license
plate
and
then
giving
me
a
ticket,
because
you
know
the
car's
sitting
there
and
I
don't
think
anyone
in
the
city
would
really
appreciate
that
so
to
create
a
worse
problem
for
our
residents
to
try
to
alleviate
another
one.
I
don't
think
is
the
right
approach.
F
F
It
doesn't
look
like
we're
really
allowing
any
latitude
for
the
council
to
assign
projects
to
that
committee.
So
that's
something
that,
if
there's
an
opportunity
for
us
to
create
that
opportunity
for
us
to
give
the
com
the
committee
members
interesting
work
to
do.
I
think
it
may
resolve
some
of
the
concern
that
I've
heard
from
committee
members
in
terms
of
they
feel
that
it's
too
prescribed
and
they
don't
feel
that
their
talents
are
being
fully
utilized.
F
But
at
the
same
time,
I
I
do
agree
that
we
do
have
to
be
very
careful
in
what
we
do
allow
them
to
do,
because
if
they
were
to
just
make
recommendations
willy-nilly
and
those
would
give
us
to
the
council
without
ever
being
reviewed
by
staff
or
or
being
vetted
that
they
somehow
concur
with
with
state
law
or
our
own
ordinances,
that
that
would
probably
not
be
the
best
the
best
outcome.
So,
in
summary,
I
know
I
kind
of
went
around
in
circles
there,
but
yeah.
F
I
don't
think
that
we
need
to
tweak
anything
around
the
72-hour
rule.
I
believe
that
it
it
is
about
as
far
as
we
can
go
in
terms
of
what
we're
prescribing
in
an
ordinance,
but
I
do
believe
that
the
residential
parking
permit
could
be
a
potential
solution
to
that
that
we
need
to
reinvestigate
and
depending
on
where
it
falls
on
the
priority
list.
F
B
Yes,
thank
you
mayor.
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
councilmember
salazar's
comment
and
suggestion
that
we
potentially
enveloped
this
as
a
project
for
the
tsbc
to
look
at.
We
have
talked
about
through
strategic
initiatives
under
the
strong
governance
item,
that
one
of
the
committees
that
we
would
look
at
sort
of
redefining
and
taking
a
more
holistic
look
at
the
work
they
do
is
tstc,
and
certainly
this
is
an
effort
in
a
conversation
that
fits
in
line
with
the
core
goals
of
tspc.
B
B
And
you
know
some
of
the
most
successful
are
san
francisco,
that
put
so
many
restrictions
on
owning
a
car
that
people
stop
owning
as
many
cars
as
they
do.
But
but
it's
not
a
it's,
not
an
easy
problem
to
solve
and
absolutely
sort
of
enveloping
it
as
a
larger
project
that
does
have
staff
or
contract
traffic
engineer
staff
tied
to
it
is
the
way
to
address
it.
F
Hand
is
back
up,
thank
you,
sir,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
add
on
that.
I
I
agree
that
it's
not
a
silver
bullet
and
it's
not
going
to
solve
every
problem,
but
the
majority
of
the
complaints
I
hear
that
pertain
to
having
cars
towed
or
removed
after
72
hours
is
generally
related
to
either
ride,
share
or
people
that
are
going
on
trips
and
leaving
their
cars
in
the
neighborhood,
and
I
believe
that
a
parking
permit
program
would
address
that.
It's
not
gonna.
F
F
I
mean
it
could
have
a
benefit
if
we're
wasting
a
lot
of
our
staff
time
in
you
know
the
police
department
going
out
there
to
tow
vehicles,
there's
a
benefit
to
us
having
a
program
where
you
know
we,
we
can
get
rid
of
a
lot
of
those
and
a
lot
of
times.
The
posted
sign
is
enough
to
keep
people
out
of
it
and
when
we
do
have
to
tow,
then
it's
not
going
to
require
72
hours
like
it
does
now.
C
Thank
everyone
for
the
discussion
it
is.
I
did
want
to
say
I,
the
idea
of
giving
committees
just
more
leeway
in
bringing
up
topics.
I
I
thought
we
were
gonna,
discuss
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
as
part
of
the
strong
governance,
because
I
know
it's
come
up
a
couple
of
times
just
with
committees
across
the
board,
and
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
the
attorney
zepharon's
comment
about
the
conversation
right
now
with
courts
around
ensuring
that
marginalized
populations
are
not
being
adversely
impacted.
C
That
is
very,
very
true,
and
I
think
that
my
concern
here
is
that
anecdotally,
when
you
drive
around
the
city,
it's
our
marginalized
populations
who
are
not
able
to
park
in
front
of
their
homes
and
it's
because
of
people
that
are
parking
going
to
the
airport
for
being
able
to
afford
to
take
trips,
or
maybe
they
have
whatever
reason
they're
at
the
airport
or
working
at
the
airport.
So
I
think
that
in
our
case,
it's
the
opposite.
Where
we
have,
you
know
apartment
buildings
where
people
cannot
find
parkings.
C
I
will
refer
to
seattle.
Seattle
does
have
a
72-hour
ordinance
around
parking.
They
clearly
identify
that
that
or
that
the
72
hours
can
change
at
any
time
to
24
hours.
They
identify
that
if
you're
gonna
park
and
you're
in
an
in
this
area,
you
might
want
to
leave
your
keys
with
somebody
in
the
neighborhood
in
case
your
car
has
to
be
moved.
So
as
far
as
the
step-by-step
enforcement.
C
That,
I
would
agree,
is
a
standard
operating
procedure,
but
whether
we
can
be
more
clear
around
what
that
72
hours
means
and
how
we
can
make
sure
that
we
really
provide
the
chief
and
the
police
department
with
the
resources
they
need
to
enforce.
Whatever
stronger
72
hour
ordinance,
we
can
create
that's
really
where
I
want
to
be
more
persistent
and
more
vocal,
because
we,
we
do
clearly
have
a
problem
in
the
areas
where
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
cars.
C
A
It
is
fine,
but
what
you
do
find
and
I've
seen
it
watch
neighbors
hate
it
over
bayshore
circle.
When
I
was
at
the
park
having
a
group
meeting
one
wanted
it
and
one
didn't
want
it,
and
it
was
based
because
of
the
number
of
cars.
If
you
only
could
have
one
or
two
permits
that
wasn't:
okay,
they
pay
taxes.
So
but
then,
in
essence,
you
you
have.
A
A
I
don't
think
they
thought
about
putting
a
car
in
the
garage,
and
so
you
know
I
think
we
need
to
be
sensitive
to
that,
but
at
the
same
time
too,
those
are
for
another
discussion
at
another
time,
and
hopefully
I
don't
want
to
repeat
everything
that
everyone
has
said
to
to
move
it
on,
but
what
I
do
whatever
I
did
do
I've
gotten
chief
johansen's,
I
see
his
hand
is
up.
So
I
wanted
my
call
on
the
chief.
G
But
thank
you,
mr
mayor.
Just
briefly,
I
wanted
to
support
the
comments
that
the
city
attorney
made
about
the
ordinance.
I
can
appreciate
the
desire
to
support
the
police
department
and
better
delivering
on
the
expectations
of
the
communities
that
are
impacted
by
parking
down
there.
I
think
that
what
maybe
didn't
get
said
as
succinctly
as
it
needs
to
be
said,
is
that
it,
the
the
the
courts,
are
moving
in
the
opposite
direction
of
strengthening
toe
ordinances
and
the
authority
to
tow.
G
A
A
I
had
asked
earlier
at
the
beginning,
I'm
sorry
and
no
no,
no
problem
and
I'm
kind
of
keep.
I
was
keeping
my
eye
on,
but
as
as
the
vice
mayor
said,
just
because
the
vice
mayor
said:
let's
anybody
please
raise
their
hand
I'll,
stop
I'll,
stop
the
motion,
but
there
is
a
motion
on
on
the
floor
from
council
member
salazar.
A
B
B
A
F
E
A
B
F
A
Yeah,
let's,
let's
just
let's
have
clarity,
I'm
going
to
have
the
city
attorney
we're
going
to
walk
through
this.
What
I
understood
under
there
was
a
recommendation
by
council
member
mason
under
page
132
under
duties,
attorney
zafarano
had
his
verbiage
of
the
succession
and
recommendation
that
that
is
what
I
recall
and
does
anybody
recall
any
other
changes?
I
think
that
takes
care
of
what
we
were
talking
about
in
the
beginning.
D
C
Sorry
not
prior
to
not
prior
to
staff,
to
turn
zafarano
it's
harder
to
finalizing
a
study.
So
if
the
consultant
brings
back
a
study,
it
would
go
to
the
tspc
before
it
went
to
the
council
if
it's
even
going
to
go
to
the
council
so
essentially
before
the
study
is
finalized.
The
step
before
finalization
is
the
tspc.
C
D
I
think
that
the
difficulty
we're
going
to
have
here
is
there
may
be
an
entire
subset
of
traffic
studies
that
don't
ever
go
to
the
tspc
and
aren't
required
to
and
there's
no
reason
for
them
to
go
and
I'm
concerned
that
the
proposed
recommendation
really
doesn't
doesn't
distinguish
among
those
situations
and
others
in
which
the
recommendation
is.
Actually
it's
a
tspc
item.
So
without
sort
of
having
time
to
think
about
how
many
of
those
items
are
there.
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
recommend
a
change
that
staff
really
hasn't
weighed
in
on.
E
Yeah,
just
to
I
agree
with
everything
the
city
attorney
just
said:
the
psbc
didn't
ever
finalize
the
study.
The
study
was
one
of
the
pieces
of
information
that
we
would
use
to
make
or
to
make
a
recommendation,
so
the
staff
would
come
they'd
give
their
report,
they
would
they.
The
staff
would
have
a
recommendation
and
the
and
the
the
study
was
the
supporting
evidence
for
why
they
made
the
recommendation.
E
What
we
would
do
on
occasion
is,
after
reviewing
the
study,
find
that
it
was
incomplete
in
our
estimation
and
direct
staff
to
please
go
back
and
do,
and
you
know,
expand
the
scope
of
the
study
or
do
do
whatever
and
bring
the
item
back
to
us
again,
but
we
never
took
any
action
specifically
on
a
study
and,
frankly,
I
wouldn't
recommend
that
we
do
do
that,
because
I
think
it
would
hamper
the
process.
I
do
think
what's
in
place
now
in
terms
of
how
the
tspc
works
with
staff.
E
A
A
Okay,
so
there
was
modification
made
on
page
132,
as
stated
by
the
city
attorney,
which
he
he
reiterated,
what
his
recommendation
is.
Have
we
all
heard
that
are
all
in
sync
on
that
one:
okay,
mark
city
attorney:
was
there
anything
else
that
you
wanted
to
bring
forward
other
than
that
one
modification
to
the
document.
F
D
Sure,
and
just
to
be
clear,
I
don't
see
that
my
suggestion
is
changing
your
duties.
I
think
these
are
their
duties
all
along,
and
so
the
recommended
language
would
be
as
follows:
quote
to
provide
a
forum
for
discussion
and
provide
recommendations
regarding
traffic
studies
and
reports.
So
the
wording
that
would
be
added
was
and
provide
recommendations
regarding.