Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Camping Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors amend, advance ordinance restricting camping and sheltering in parks
Summary
The Board of Supervisors amended and approved on first reading an ordinance that would ban cooking, sleeping and modifying park landscape to create shelter in city parks between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m., with clarified language around outstanding citations.
San Francisco—s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday amended and advanced an ordinance that would prohibit cooking, sleeping and modifying park landscape to create shelter in any park between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. The board approved the item as amended on first reading after a roll-call vote.
The measure—s sponsor, Supervisor McGoldrick, said the amendment was intended to clarify the citation language so that a person would not be subject to the section for an ancient, paid or resolved citation. Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams told the board the phrase "outstanding citation" should be defined to mean "a citation that is not paid or that is under appeal." Adams said that change would avoid applying the ban because of a decades-old citation with no temporal limit.
The board voted to adopt the amendment to the ordinance on the motion by Supervisor McGoldrick, seconded by Supervisor Ellsburn, with a roll call that recorded 10 ayes and 1 no on the amendment (Supervisor Chu cast the lone no). After the amendment, the board approved the ordinance as amended on first reading by a recorded vote of 10 ayes and 1 no.
Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams said of the clarifying language: "'Outstanding citation' shall mean a citation that is not paid or that is under appeal." Supervisor McGoldrick described the clarification as necessary to avoid a provision that could apply retroactively to very old citations.
The ordinance will require one additional reading to complete the legislative process.
The item drew no extended public comment during the board meeting on Tuesday. The city attorney—s office indicated the amendment was not considered a substantial amendment, but because it was an amendment made on second reading it must now go through an additional reading.
Votes at a glance: On the amendment and on final passage for first reading, the board recorded 10 ayes and 1 no. The no vote on the amendment and on passage was cast by Supervisor Chu; the recorded ayes included Supervisors Magoldrick, Mercarimi, Peskin, Sandoval, Aleotopeir, Ammiano, Daly, Duffy, Ellsburn and Maxwell (as read aloud during roll call).
