By Benjamin Wachs

Monday, March 10

10 a.m. - Government Audit and Oversight Committee

A quick "special" meeting of this committee has been called to go over proposed changes and questions to items previously on the Supes agenda. First up: changing the San Francisco traffic code en masse to replace it with the "San Francisco Transportation Code."

Who said government isn't glamorous?

Why on earth would they do that? Because municipal code is like computer code, and you need to upgrade from time to time. In this case, the Supes are trying to make the Traffic Code "Prop A compatible." Since the voters passed Prop A, about half of the stuff in the traffic code falls under the SFMTA's jurisdiction - and the law needs to reflect that. The traffic code was also a little buggy, filled with references to city departments that no longer exist and occasionally contradicting state law.

Oops.

Next on the agenda: the very popular provision that "if we're going to HAVE shelters, shouldn't they actually provide shelter?" I can not, for the life of me, understand why having standards of care for shelters, and holding contracted shelter providers in violation of contract if they don't meet standards, is so hard for San Francisco to wrap its head around.

Ohhhhh, right: accountability. We don't do that here.

Finally, the Supes will vote yet again on the idea that if we're going to have shelters, and standards for shelters, and hold people accountable for meeting those standards then we ought to have someone watching to see if the standards are, in fact, met.

Wow, it's like the 60s never happened.

1 p.m. - Land Use and Public Safety Committee

This meeting starts by examining a critical revision to the way San Francisco designates Landmark Trees.

Critical. Just critical. I mean, the Urban Forestry Council was at a loss.

Actually, it is nice that they're including a provision notifying the owner of private property on which a potential "Landmark Tree" sits that their tree is being considered for protected status. That's neighborly. Um, why exactly didn't we do that before?

But then, after this coma inducing start, something interesting happens. The other item on the committee's agenda is to determine how we can penalize people for violating the planning code.

Say what? ANOTHER measure aimed at actually enforcing city rules? Two in a row?
This isn't kidding around, either: the existing code doesn't even have a section on penalties for violating city ordinances. The new code will. The existing code doesn't have a section on enforcement procedures. The new code will.

It's like we're a grown-up city.

Tuesday, March 11, 2 p.m. - Full Board of Supervisors

Annnnnnnnd ... we're back to Landmark Trees. There is a proposal to designate the Blue elderberrly located at Folsom Street and Bernal Heights as a Landmark Tree; also the Moreton bay Fig at 2555 Cesar Chavez Street; and a couple of Flowering Ash trees, too.
Yep - that's your Government InAction.

The rest of it is all old news. See last week. Actually, see the week before that.