Posts Tagged ‘board of supervisors’

Press Release: “Board of Supervisors President London Breed Introduces Toughest Styrofoam Ban Law in the Country”

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

“Board of Supervisors President London Breed Introduces Toughest Styrofoam Ban Law in the Country

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 19, 2016

SAN FRANCISCO— Board of Supervisors President London Breed today introduced legislation to create the most expansive Styrofoam prohibitions in the country including a ban on the sale of Styrofoam: 1) cups, plates, clamshells, meat trays, egg cartons, and other food ware; 2) packing materials, including packing peanuts; 3) coolers; 4) pool and beach toys; and 5) dock floats, buoys, and other marine products, as well as a ban on the use of Styrofoam packing material for items packaged in San Francisco.

“Three days before we celebrate the 47th Earth Day, I am excited to introduce some of the strongest environmental protection legislation in the country,” said President Breed. “We are a city prized for our natural beauty, surrounded by water on three sides. We have a moral, a public health, and frankly a financial responsibility to protect ourselves from pollutants like polystyrene foam.*”

Polystyrene cannot be recycled through San Francisco’s blue bin recycling collection program and essentially never decomposes. It is a significant source of litter on land and one of the most egregious elements of rising plastic pollution in the Bay and ocean.

Polystyrene breaks down into smaller, non-biodegradable pieces that seabirds often mistake for fish eggs. And unlike harder plastics, polystyrene contains a chemical used in its production called “styrene” that is metabolized after ingestion and threatens the entire food chain, including humans who eat contaminated marine wildlife. Styrene is linked to cancer and developmental disorders, and according to the US FDA, it leaches into food and drink from polystyrene food ware.

“The science is clear: this stuff is an environmental and public health pollutant, and we have to reduce its use,” said President Breed. “There are ample cost effective alternatives to Styrofoam on the market.”

More than 100 US cities have ordinances restricting polystyrene food service ware and/or packaging materials. San Francisco itself has prohibited serving food in polystyrene since 2007. President Breed’s legislation is the next step, covering new uses that have never been regulated in other cities.

“San Francisco will once again be at the forefront,” said President Breed. “We will replace hazardous products with compostable, recyclable ones. We will continue our work toward Zero Waste. And we will protect the public health and the natural beauty of our waterways and wildlife.”

President Breed worked closely with the San Francisco Department of the Environment, the nonprofit Sustainable San Francisco, the California Grocers Association, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, as well as many local and international businesses. The legislation is designed to help businesses comply and accommodate those who cannot yet.
__________________________________________
*Styrofoam is actually a brand name for polystyrene foam.

Here We Go Again: “SUPERVISOR MALIA COHEN AND LONDON BREED’S STATEMENT REGARDING TEXT MESSAGES BY SFPD OFFICERS”

Tuesday, April 5th, 2016

Just released, below.

And here’s two cents from CWNevius, to compare.

Mario Woods day stand shows S.F. supervisors are clueless

Disorderly conduct at top of SF law enforcement

(He seems much less demanding of the SFPD.)

“*** STATEMENT ***
SUPERVISOR MALIA COHEN AND BOARD PRESIDENT LONDON BREED’S STATEMENT REGARDING RECENTLY REVEALED TEXT MESSAGES BY SFPD OFFICERS

SAN FRANCISCO – At the full Board of Supervisors meeting today, Supervisor Malia Cohen and Board President London Breed issued the following joint statement regarding the recently revealed racist and homophobic text messages sent by a new group of San Francisco police officers.

“It has barely been a year since the last time we issued a joint statement about racist and homophobic text messages exchanged by SFPD officers. In that time, we’ve witnessed the tragic shooting of Mario Woods; the launch of multiple investigations; our community gripped by protests and pain; and—in a maddening twist—officers from the last texting scandal back on duty in SFPD uniforms.

When is enough, enough? We talk about implicit bias training, yet time and again are confronted with explicit bias by those who are sworn to protect the community. This behavior cannot be tolerated without consequence; the City must rededicate itself to police reform. 

As Supervisors, we have written June’s ballot measure to require independent investigations of all officer involved shootings. We pushed for and helped fund body cameras for every officer. We called for the federal investigation into Mario Woods’ shooting. And we led the effort to stop the proposed $300 million jail. 

But there is clearly more work to do. We need more diversity and bias training, culturally competent community relations, data collection, independent investigations, accountability, and transparency. And as we recruit more officers, it’s imperative we continue to fight for increased diversity on the force.

We urge the Police Commission and Chief to seek the fullest possible disciplinary action for the officers involved in this recent action, and we will work with the Mayor, the Department, and community stakeholders to create an action plan to prevent these incidents from ever happening again.”

KremlinWatch, 94102 – One Amazing Gif Shows Our Board of Supervisors 2015 v. 2016 – Photoshoptopia!

Thursday, February 25th, 2016

Via SFist comes news of larger-than-life Aaron Peskin being ‘Shopped into last year’s official photo of the BOS. (You might need to click on the image to get the gif going, or maybe click here.)

output_Kx9iot

Wow, man.

Just wow.

Some ideas are bad ideas…

From the Mind of CWNevius: An Ad for Senator Scott Wiener, More or Less – Today’s Topic is Tech Shuttle “Vilifiers”

Tuesday, February 16th, 2016

HERE YOU GO:

Vilifiers of tech shuttles are taking us for a ride

The Municipal Transportation Agency is just concluding an 18-month pilot program for the tech buses meant to calm fears…

REALLY, THAT’S WHAT THE PILOT WAS FOR, TO “CALM FEARS?” I THINK NOT, I THINK IT WAS FOR OTHER REASONS. IT WASN’T JUST A THERAPY SESSION FOR US IRRATIONAL “HATERS,” RIGHT?

provide a way for the shuttle companies to pay for using Muni bus stops.

UH, NO. THE PILOT FEES WERE A WAY TO PAY THE SFMTA TO RUN THE PILOT.

Most people thought…

IS THIS THE STANDARD? LIKE, DO “MOST PEOPLE” APPROVE OF MAYOR ED LEE’S JOB PERFORMANCE? NOPE! NOT CURRENTLY, ANYWAY. SO, DOES THAT “PROVE” HE’S NOT DOING A GOOD JOB? HEY, DID “MOST PEOPLE” APPROVE OF MOST OF SFGOV SERVICING THE NFL FOR FREE AND FOCUSING ON THE SUPER BOWL 50 PARTY FOR THE BULK OF THE PAST TWO MONTHS? NOPE! SO WHAT DOES THAT PROVE, CHUCK?

But the progressive wing of the supervisors, particularly Jane Kim

SO LET’S SEE HERE, JANE KIM SUCKS AND SCOTT WIENER IS OUR SUN, OUR MOON, AND ALL OUR STARS? IS THIS GOING TO BE THE THEME OF CHUCK’S COLUMNS FROM HERE TO ETERNITY / NOVEMBER 2016? I THINK SO.

“They’re playing politics,” says MTA Board director Gwyneth Borden. “We’re separate agencies, so they don’t get to tell us what to do.”

OH BOY, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ISN’T AN “AGENCY,” RIGHT? SO OUR LOCAL PARTY APARATCHIKS SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW BETTER THAN TRYING TO EQUATE THE BOS WITH THE SFMTA. OF COURSE, THE SFMTA _IS_ AN AGENCY, BUT IT’S A BIG POS AGENCY THAT SHOULD BE DISBANDED. ITS PRIMARY JOB IS RUNNING MUNI BUT IT CAN’T REALLY DO THAT WELL, SO IT FOCUSES ON TRYING TO EXPAND ITS POWER, BUDGET, PAYROLL, ETCETERA. I’LL TELL YOU, PROP E FROM 1999 HAD SOME YARDSTICKS FOR THE SFMTA – CHECK OUT “SEC. 8A.103. SERVICE STANDARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.” IT’S ALL “at least 85 percent of vehicles must run on-time.” HEY, ARE WE THERE YET? NO? SO WHAT DID THE 85% MEAN? OH, NOTHING? OH, IS 85% SOMETHING THE SFMTA TRIED TO COOK THE BOOKS TO TRY TO ATTAIN, BUT EVEN THEN IT COULDN’T? YEP. SO WHY DO WE HAVE THE SFMTA STILL AROUND THEN? OR MAYBE THE 85% FIGURE IS MEANINGLESS, JUST SOMETHING TO GET “MOST PEOPLE” TO VOTE YES ON PROP E BACK IN ’99? BOY, IT SURE SEEMS THAT WAY, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF 2016. WHAT IF THAT ON-TIME FIGURE COMMITTMENT HAD BEEN 100% – WOULD ANYTHING BE DIFFERENT NOW? OR WHAT IF PROP E PROMISED VOTERS A 110% ON-TIME PERCENTAGE? WOULD THAT HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE? IDTS. IN ANY EVENT, THE BOS ISN’T JUST ANOTHER RUN OF THE MILL “AGENCY” FILLED WITH RUN OF THE MILL APPOINTED BOARD MEMBERS, FTR.

OH NEW ISSUE: ISN’T THE SFMTA’S PILOT CONTRARY TO STATE LAW? I THINK IT IS. I THINK THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO CHANGE CA STATE LAW TO TAKE CARE OF THIS ISSUE, BUT I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT SINCE. OH WELL.

“As Supervisor Scott Wiener says…”

CWNEVIUS SHOULD LEAD OFF EVERY SENTENCE IN EVERY ONE OF HIS POLITICAL BITS LIKE THIS, ‘CAUSE THAT’S PRETTY MUCH WHAT HE’S DOING.

The shuttle companies already have parking lots and white zones picked out for stops and will just use those.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT CHUCK IS TALKING ABOUT HERE. THERE ARE SOME PARKING LOTS THAT AREN’T CURRENTLY BEING USED, BUT ARE ALREADY “PICKED OUT” JUST IN CASE? IF I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT CHUCK’S TALKING ABOUT, HOW WILL HIS EVERYMAN, ARCHIE BUNKER-TYPE READERS UNDERSTAND WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT? HEY, WHAT IF CHUCK HAD AN EDITOR, OR AT LEAST SOMEBODY TO RUN THINGS BY AFORE PUBLICATION? MAN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING.

hubs

IDK, MAYBE. MOST OF THESE ROUTES FUNCTION LIKE LIMITEDS, RIGHT? LIKE THE NX JUDAH, WHICH HAS STOPS AT BOTH ENDS WITH A LONG-HAUL STRETCH IN THE MIDDLE. SO, WHAT IF THE NX HAD JUST ONE STOP OUT IN THE AVENUES? IT WOULD BE STILL BE USEFUL TO MANY, BUT PERHAPS NOT AS USEFUL AS BEFORE. I’LL TELL YOU, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT “PLAYING POLITICS,” THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON WHEN SCOTT WIENER SAYS THAT EXPLORING HUBS WOULD “DESTROY” OUR CORPORATE BUS LINE SYSTEM.

The pilot program created some changes, like taking big buses off narrow streets, and it seemed to be working.

REALLY? I DON’T KNOW THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT CHANGES? I’LL TELL YOU, OUR SFMTA, WHICH HAS GOTTEN MILLIONS AND MILLIONS WORTH OF “BEHESTED” MONEY FROM, WELL, I’LL JUST LET YOU GUESS FROM WHOM, GENTLE READER, IS AWFULLY CAGEY ABOUT THE ENTIRE PILOT. HOW ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE, “WELL, WE HAD THIS INTERSTATE BUS TRYING TO MAKE A TURN AT THIS INTERSECTION AND IT WASN’T WORKING OUT, SO NOW WE’RE USING … SMALLER BUSES? OR, A DIFFERENT ROUTE? “IDK.

…hard-core progressives are mad as hell…

SO WHO ELECTED THIS HARD CORE, CHUCK? YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS OF FRISCO, AKA YOUR NEW-FOUND HOME? HEY, PERHAPS YOUR POLITICAL HERO SCOTT WIENER IS CONSISTENTLY RIGHT OF CENTER, SF POLITICS-WISE? ISN’T THAT TRUE? PERHAPS, BOTH CHUCK AND SCOTT ARE HARD-CORE CONSERVATIVES, SF POLITICS-WISE? DOES THIS TYPE OF DISCOURSE HELP MATTERS, ONE WONDERS?

They’re angry that the techies not only have good, high-paying jobs…

REALLY, CHUCK? SO ANY CRITIQUE OF OUR POS SFMTA IS BASED UPON THIS ALLEGED ANGER? IDTS. (AND HEY, CHUCK, DO _YOU_ HAVE A “GOOD HIGH-PAYING” JOB? OH, NO, BUT YOU’RE WORKING ON IT?)

Now they want them to leave

SO JANE KIM WANTS “TECHIES” TO LEAVE SF? REALLY?

wonderful, desirable place to live

ONE WONDERS IF THE MSM OF PYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA HAS A CHUCK NEVIUS CHEERING ON THE GOV’MINT LIKE THIS?

haters

ELECTEDS KNOW BETTER THAN TO VENT LIKE THIS, TO USE TERMS LIKE THIS, SO THEY SHUNT THIS KIND OF HEAVY LIFTING TO THEIR PR PEOPLE. BUT, THE PR PEOPLE SIMILARLY KNOW BETTER THAN TO VENT LIKE THIS. SO THEY ASSIGN THE TASK TO … SFGOV HEAD CHEER LEADER [GIVE ME A] C! [GIVE ME A] W! [GIVE ME A] NEVIUS!

all in the name of “improving” the program.

SO, ANY ATTEMPT TO ALTER WHAT THE SFMTA WANTS TO DO MUST FAIL BECAUSE WHATEVER IT’S DOING AT WHATEVER TIME IS PERFECTLY FINE? OK FINE. HEY, SPEAKING OF FINE, DID CHUCK EVER PAY FOR HIS RECENT DOCUMENTED FARE EVASION FROM THE SFMTA? IDTS! (WELL, HE DIDN’T PAY IN MONEY, ANYWAY)

ALL RIGHT, LET’S HEAR MORE ABOUT HOW GREAT SCOTT WIENER IS, ALL THE WAY UNTIL NOVEMBER 2016 ESPECIALLY, AND THEN, AS NEEDED, BY SCOTT WIENER, OR OTHERS. CHUCK IS OUR MEDIA’S CHESTER, AFTER ALL…

END OF LINE.

“San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responds to Mayor Ed Lee’s Call to Rescind ICE Contact Policy” – Requests BoS Hearing

Thursday, July 16th, 2015

A new release:

“San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responds to Mayor Ed Lee’s Call to Rescind ICE Contact Policy

San Francisco, CA ― San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi today delivered his response to Mayor Ed Lee’s July 14, 2015, letter [referenced here in the Examiner] calling on the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to rescind its policy regarding contact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“This tragedy spotlights the need for legal clarity at every government level,” stated Sheriff Mirkarimi. “This matter requires an open and honest conversation about the legislative intent and meaning of San Francisco’s ordinances and how they comport with everyday enforcement of laws leading to deportations.”

In his response, printed in its entirety below, the Sheriff asserts that the Mayor’s request raises legal conflicts; the Sheriff asks for an open and immediate discussion, via a Board of Supervisors committee hearing, to resolve the conflicts, provide clarity, and produce a workable and fair ordinance.

July 15, 2015
Reference: 2015-120

The Honorable Edwin Lee
Mayor
City Hall, Room 200
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Mayor Lee:

I received your July 14, 2015 letter regarding the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s (SFSD) Federal Immigration communications policy. Your letter does not provide legal clarity regarding my department’s duty under city law. Your request to immediately rescind the policy contributes to the confusion and conflict between the Sanctuary City Ordinance (Administrative Code 12H.2) and the Due Process For All Ordinance (Administrative Code 12I). I urge a resolution of these conflicts so that there is a consistent and uniform understanding of the laws.

Finger pointing around this tragedy serves no purpose other than election year politics. It would serve the public interest to have an immediate open discussion of the Sanctuary City Ordinance and the Due Process For All Ordinance. I propose that you and I and other stakeholders come before a committee hearing with the Board of Supervisors so that a resolution of the conflicts can be achieved in a meaningful and transparent way.

Your request to rescind the policy and require the SFSD to contact federal immigration officials would eviscerate the city’s Due Process For All Ordinance, an ordinance I supported and which you signed into law. Historically, the only reason for SFSD to notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release has been in relation to honoring an immigration detainer. This practice has been curtailed by the Due Process For All Ordinance and the federal court ruling that any detention for the release of an individual to federal immigration officials without probable cause violates the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

At present, the only request for notification SFSD has received from federal immigration officials is contained in the detainer form which the Due Process For All Ordinance prohibits SFSD from honoring, absent limited circumstances.

The only reason to now notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release would be to facilitate the release of the individual to the federal immigration officials. This would completely circumvent the requirements and intent of the Sanctuary City Ordinance, the Due Process For All Ordinance and lead to unconstitutional detentions.

In 2013, my office worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office and the Board of Supervisors before and after the Due Process For All Ordinance was implemented to provide guidance on its provisions and effects. SFSD alerted representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, the Board of Supervisors and you of provisions of the Ordinance that posed operational and procedural problems. In early 2015, I met with the Deputy Secretary and Secretary of Homeland Security separately on two occasions to confirm San Francisco’s laws and procedures. I also expressed concern about the legality of the detainer/notification process.

I shall continue to ensure that SFSD policy as it relates to federal immigration issues is consistent with city, state, and federal laws. I therefore request legislative direction to reconcile the conflict inherent in your proposal versus city legislation prohibiting ICE detainers except in specific circumstances. Your request would require the Board of Supervisors to amend the Administrative Code as it relates to cooperation with federal immigration officials and honoring detainers.

In addition to clarifying city law, other solutions should be considered. One such solution is to propose that an Administrative Law Judge review immigration detainers and provide a warrant or finding of probable cause for those persons who federal immigration officials seek to detain.

I will continue to cooperate with any amendments to city legislation by the Board of Supervisors. I look forward to working with all city representatives including the Board of Supervisors and the City Attorney’s Office to provide legal clarity to these sensitive and complex issues.

Sincerely,

ROSS MIRKARIMI
Sheriff

cc London Breed, President of the Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors

Is David Chiu Really This Orange? The Challenges of White Balance at the Chambers of the Board of Superviors – Desaturation = Win

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

The offending photo, reposted today.

That’s over the line, IMO.

Here’s a two-step fix – tone down the Saturation by sliding left and then brighten up the remaining sunburned-looking patch on the forehead using Replace Color:

920x920 copy

JMO.

Is this impermissible photo manipulation?

IDK, but it’s certainly closer to IRL than what I started with…

If District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell Needs To Be Replaced Soon, Two People with Legitimacy are Abe Simmons and Kat Anderson

Monday, December 15th, 2014

First things first, you tell me how big a deal this is:

Supervisor Farrell directed to pay S.F. $190,000 for violation by John Coté

And don’t niss this part:

“Theoretically speaking, I think they then become the same campaign,” said John St. Croix, director of the Ethics Commission.

Kaboom. Did an effort (from Janet Reilly, or some other Reilly)…

FPPC Stipulation, Decision and Order

…lead to this…

FPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.

…almost four long years later?

OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS:

1. Why does big news always seem to come out post meridiem on a Day of Frigg, you know, like on a Friday evening? Funny that.

2. Could this situation explain why Mark Farrell nominated (law student(!)) Katy Tang as interim Board of Supervisors President?

3. Is Mark Farrell going to serve out his second term? IDK.

4. If he doesn’t, who’s going to replace him? Mmmm…

The election that District 2 held four years ago was narrowly lost by Janet Reilly, but I can’t see her ever getting appointed D2 Supe in today’s political environment.

Now, what about the people who came in third and fourth, the people who myabe could have / should have formed an ANYBODY BUT JANET ranked-choice voting troika / three-way with Mark Farrell?

Meet Ivy Leaguer Abraham Simmons:

Does he still live in the District? IDK.

Now meet Stanfoo-educated Kat Anderson:

I’m thinking either of these two attorneys could slot right into the job.

You know, if necessary.

Here’s what people have been talking about over the weekend:

Agenda – December 16, 2014

SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING and AGENDA
December 16, 2014, 5:00 P.M.
Room 400 City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco

[EXCERPT]

  • Discussion with City Attorney’s Office regarding potential litigation by the City Attorney’s Office against local committees, including Common Sense Voters, SF 2010; Vote for Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor, for violations of local campaign finance laws.  Possible Closed Session.  (Attachments: FPPC Stipulation, Decision and OrderFPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.)
    1. Public comment on all matters pertaining to Agenda Item III, including whether to meet in closed session.
    2. Vote on whether to assert attorney-client privilege and meet in closed session under California Government Code section 54956.9 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation:  San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114.  (Action.)
    3. Conference with Legal Counsel:  Anticipated litigation.  (Discussion.)
      Number of possible cases: 1
    4. If closed session is held, reconvene in open session.
    5. Discussion and vote pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken or discussions held in closed session regarding anticipated litigation.   (Discussion and possible action.)
      Motion:  The Ethics Commission moves (not) to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation.

I suppose we’ll find out more tomorrow…

Mid-Market Update: Marinello School of Beauty Declares WORLD’S SMALLEST DRUG-FREE ZONE – Just a Five Foot Radius

Monday, October 20th, 2014

This photo came from longtime SoMA resident Bluoz:

“New sign in the doorway of Marinello’s School of Beauty in Mid Market, San Francisco, where all this takes place

Captureljlj copy

He continues:

“Help us have four more years of this. Vote for Randy Shaw Jane Kim for District 6 Supervisor in San Francisco.”

R.I.P. Moss Room Restaurant – Now Here’s the Outdoorsy, More Casual “Terrace” at the California Academy of Sciences

Thursday, October 16th, 2014

[UPDATE: So I’ve been looking for any kind of support for The San Francisco Chronicle’s objections to Sodexo, but I’m not finding much. Throw in this rewrite from well-trafficked EaterSF of the Chronicle bit linked below and see that the obviously-well-trafficked Chron got a total of four comments on the matter.

And, oh look, The Terrace is now officially approved by District One Supervisor Eric Mar and District Four Supervisor Katy Tang.

And here’s what the place looks like on a foggier day.

And now we’ve also got these posts:

Academy of Sciences opens “The Terrace” cafe for garden dining from The Richmond District Blog

New academy restaurant maintains Bay Area culinary trend by David Boitano, Steinhart Aquarium[!] Examiner

And here’s the new menu of The Terrace

So that’s a wrap on the Academy’s new eatery.]

Or The Terrace, if you prefer, at our California Academy of Sciences

Believe it or not, this is a color photo:

7J7C7783a copy

Oh, this is better:

7J7C7778 copy

Comes now the San Francisco Chronicle’s Paolo Lucchesi to complain about the choice of vendor for this eatery (and BTW, it’s also the new vendor for  Academy Cafe, about which more anon). 

So I don’t know – basically what’s happening is we’re losing the subterranean fine dining Moss Room but gaining the more casual Terrace. I’ll tell you, I was invited to sample the food twice at the Moss Room, both for the first iteration a while back and then for one of the more recent efforts, and I declined because I’m not really competent to judge food, frankly. (But at the time I wondered how the place would do considering its location, which aint good for several reasons…)

Anyway, I don’t get the beef over the new vendor. I assume that everything will work out fine.

Speaking of which, here’s the new menu from the Academy Cafe, which just started up October 1st or so:

7J7C7786a

Now back to the Terrace – here you go, some bites with goat cheese. It was yummy:

7J7C7773 copy

And here’s a salad:

7J7C7775 copy

And here’s what’s in the salad:

7J7C7774 copy

And here’s the pizetta:

7J7C7776 copy

And so on…

Do you see what I mean here? The Terrace isn’t a replacement for the Moss Room – it’s just what came next after the Moss Room didn’t work out. And the basement location of the Moss Room would appear to make a great semi-hidden event space…

(I can recall how upset some people were about getting a new vendor at the nearby Stow Lake Boathouse a few years back. The “local” vendor basically responded to the RPD beauty contest with a real half-assed attitude – he thought he deserved the contract no matter what. I didn’t agree with that either.)

Anyway, if the food writers of the Chronicle want to head out to the Park to see the set-up, I’m sure they’d be welcome to do so…

All the deets:

(more…)

LONDON CALLING! 4/20 Day 2014 Coming This Easter Sunday – Haight-Ashbury Supervisor London Breed Wants a Crackdown

Wednesday, April 16th, 2014

Here’s what Annual 420 Day looks like, not too far from the Haight Street McDonalds on Stanyan.

That’s not fog, that’s a cloud of exhaled Mary Jane:

An excellent capture from world-famous Broke-Ass Stuart.

All right, Happy 420 Day 2014!

And now, let’s hear from London Breed:

“April 16, 2014

Sunday, April 20th Activities in Golden Gate Park and the Haight-Ashbury

This Sunday, April 20th, will see not only Easter celebrations throughout the City, but the likely return of an informal and unpermitted “4/20” gathering in Golden Gate Park and the Haight, which has caused significant problems in the community over the years and was particularly problematic last year.

Crowds strained police, Muni, and park resources, overwhelmed residential streets, and in several instances, damaged public and private property. Traffic came to a standstill as cars swarmed thearea. Garbage overflowed from curbside cans that proved unequal to the occasion. And on Sunday, 4/21, staff and volunteers with the Recreation and Parks Department had to laboriously collect over 10,000 pounds of litter left in the parks, not to mention the trash collected by the Department of Public Works from the upper Haight to Hayes Valley.

I am determined not to allow these impacts again this year. Over the past months, I have worked closely with the Police and Parks Departments, Mayor Lee’s office, and the MTA on a comprehensive city approach to this event. There is no sponsor for 4/20, no organizer to hold to account. But I want the community to know that their Supervisor and their government are doing everything possible to ensure a safe, peaceful April 20th for both visitors and residents.

San Francisco, as always, welcomes celebrants with open arms, but this Sunday there will be boundaries to keep the community safe, and there will be no tolerance for anyone using 4/20 as an excuse to harm our parks or neighborhoods.

 There will be increased law enforcement presence both uniform and plainclothes—including Juvenile Probation Officers—in the Park, upper and lower Haight, and surrounding neighborhoods with a strict enforcement approach to all code violations.

 Parking is very limited in the area, and there will be Parking Control Officers (PCOs) ticketing and/or towing vehicles parked illegally in any way, e.g. on lawns or in neighbors’ driveways. PCOs will also be deployed at busy intersections to keep traffic and transit moving.

 Unpermitted booths and concessions in the Parks will not be allowed. Such enterprises will be immediately cited and removed.

 Traffic control officers, SFPD, and Muni will be on hand in the afternoon to help move visitors out of the neighborhoods quickly and safely. Muni will reroute buses off Haight Street between Stanyan and Masonic to avoid delays. 

If our neighborhoods and parks are expected to continue hosting a large gathering, without an organizer or any resources beyond those provided by the taxpayer, we must all be vigilant in ensuring the event is safe, clean, and responsible.

LONDON N. BREED

City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4689 (415) 554-7630

Fax (415) 554 – 7634 TDD/TTY (415) 554-5227 E-mail: London.Breed@sfgov.org