Petition Challenging Prop R Rebuttal Argument
Petition Challenging Prop R Rebuttal Argument
eremy Pollock
90 I Broderick St #5
.San Francisco, CA 94115
TELEPHONENO.:
MAILING ADDRESS:
c1r YAND z1PcoDE.:
BRANCH NAME:
CASE NAME:
.., ,, :. ,
~ :- ,r;
510-207-9745
FAXN~."Jf
SEP - 2 AH ll: 5F
Unlimit ed
(Amount
demanded
exceeds $25,000)
CASE NUMBER:
Limited
(Amount
demanded is
$25,000 or less)
Counter
Joinder
JU
DEPT:
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort
D
D
Contract
Auto (22)
Uninsured motorist (46)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Unlawful Detainer
Commercial (31 )
D
D
D
Enforcement of Judgment
Drugs (38)
RIC0(27)
Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
D
D
[ZJ
D
D
D
Residential (32)
Judicial Review
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
2. This case LJ is
LLJ is.not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
d.
b.
e.
c.
f.
a.
monetary
c.
punitive
5. This case
is
[Z] is not a class action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You m
Date: September 2, 2016
Jeremy Pollock
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
NOTICE
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or pro eding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
o If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
o Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv.
o
JSa e 1 of 2
Pet~+\ol\ ~,..-
wr:~ of fV\ Q~JCt k>
VS.
CPF-16-515245
Petition
Petitioner/Plaintiff Jeremy Pollock respectfully petitions for a writ of mandate to the
Superior Court of the County of San Francisco and allege as follows:
1. The real parties in interest submitted the "Rebuttal to the Opponent" ballot argument
("the ballot argument") for Proposition Ron the November 8, 2016 San Francisco
election.
2. Proposition R would create a "Neighborhood Crime Unit" in the San Francisco Police
Department.
3. The ballot argument states that Proposition R would "significantly increase ... bike
patrols."
1
.
4. But this is clearly a false and misleading statement because the legal text of
Parties.
6. Petitioner JEREMY POLLOCK is a resident of San Francisco, a registered voter, a
regular bicycle rider, and a member of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.
7. Real party in interest SCOTT WIENER is a member of the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors and is the primary author of the Rebuttal to the Opponent of Proposition
R.
8. Real party in interest EDWIN LEE is the Mayor of San Francisco and is a co-author
of the Rebuttal to the Opponent of Proposition R.
9. Real party in interest MALIA COHEN is a member of the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors and is a co-author of the Rebuttal to the Opponent of Proposition R.
10. Real party in interest MARK FARRELL is a member of the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors and is a co-author of the Rebuttal to the Opponent of Proposition R.
11. Real party in interest KATY TANG is a member of the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors and is a co-author of the Rebuttal to the Opponent of Proposition R.
arguments" are also subject to the requirements that they not be false or misleading,
or otherwise inconsistent with the requirements of the Elections Code. (Elec. Code
. 9295)
13. California Elections Code Section 9509(b)(l) states that "During the IO-calendar-day
public examination period provided by this section, any voter of the jurisdiction in
which the election is being held, or the elections official, himself or herself, may seek
a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended
or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the
end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period."
14. California Elections Code Section 9509(b)(l) states that "A peremptory writ of
mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that
the material in question is false, misleading."
15. San Francisco Municipal Elections Code Section 590(b)(5) defines the public
examination period for rebuttal arguments to San Francisco propositions as follows.
"Rebuttal arguments submitted pursuant to Section 535(b) of this Code shall be
available for public examination starting no later than noon on the seventy-seventh
day prior to the election. The public examination period shall end at noon on the
sixty-seventh day prior to the election."
16. The San Francisco Department of Elections Calendar for the November 8, 2016
Consolidated General Election states that the public examination period for rebuttal
arguments shall extend from August 23 at twelve noon to September 2 at noon.
17. Proposition R is an initiative ordinance submitted for the November 8, 2016 San
Francisco election by four members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,
SCOTT WIENER, MALIA COHEN, MARK FARRELL, and KATY TANG,
attached as Exhibit 1.
18. Proposition R would add Section 2A.84 to the San Francisco Administrative Code to
create the Neighborhood Crime Unit in the Police Department.
19. The legal text of Proposition R makes no reference to "bike patrols," "bicycle
patrols," or any related concepts. The only reference to "bicycle" in the text of
Proposition R is in Section 2A.84-6(a), which states that officers assigned to the
29. Petitioner has no speedy or adequate remedy at law, unless the Court issues a writ of
mandate requiring Respondent to strike the offending ballot argument, and take
further measures necessary in compliance with the Elections Code. The issuance of
the writ will not substantially interfere with the conduct of the election.
Respectfully submitted,
Verifications
Respectfully submitted,
September 2, 2016
Submittal Form
For Proposed Initiative Measure(s)
Prior to the Submittal
to the
Department of Elections
By 4 or more Board of Supervisors or the Mayor
I, hereby submit the following proposed initiative measure(s) for hearing before the
Board of Supervisors, Rules Committee prior to the submittal of the proposed initiative
measure to the Department of Elections. (Prop C. Nov. 2007)
This matter is for the November gth, 2016 Election.
Sponsor(s): Supervisor
~w~~
Signature
of~ponsoring Supervisor(s)
~1
.)
()
.:~~c3'
.1z::::::
L!_ L:_
.~:~
:...;
,.
;J,,
~~:
:JE
;-.. _
11Jr! J! ....11'~ 2 1
2Bt11.._,~
I
rn.i 1 ,
f~~1L}
'
Ordinance a.mending the Administrative Code to create the Neighborhood Crime Unit in
the Police Department, to be activated when the Controller certifies that the Department
is .at the full staffing level mandated in the City Charter, and to set minimum- staffing
ieveis for and assign duties to the Unit.
NOTE:
SEC.
2A.84~2.
FINDINGS.
Violent crime in San Francisco is at an historic low. but the City's neighborhoods have seen a
significant increase in crimes such as home burglaries, automobile break-ins, and automobile thefis.
Page 1
2Ur.1f!'
J"U;u
H
These kinds of crimes make residents teel unsafe in their homes and vehicles and on City streets and
1:.ti:f ;l,!,"1
l1E.t~
Page2
'lri'c:
";1;
f..Ul~ ,JHJ-";
21 PM~
li: Lil 7
(a)
(b)
{c)
Task the Unit with proactively and comprehensivelv investigating neighborhood crime
and enforcing laws to deter neighborhood crime, and when deploved to specific police districts, to
assist with responding to. 911 and 311 calls for service related to neighborhood crime.
{d)
Create transparency and accountability data metrics for neighborhood crime and the
Unit's efforts to combat such crime, with required reports to the Police Commission..
SEC. 2A.84"4. CREATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME UNIT, SPECIFICATION OF
DUTIES OF UNIT.
(a) There shall be a Neighborhood Crime Unit within the Police Department. as prescribed by
Sections 2A.84-5 and 2A.84-6.
(b)
The Unit shall be responsible t?r proactive and comprehensive deterrence and investigation
of crime and quality oflife violations throughout the various neighborhoods within the City through the
use of neighborhood foot patrols, among other tactics.
{c) The Unit mav encompass several existing Police functions, at the discretion of the Chielof
Police, including but not limited to: the Patrol Bureau Task Force, the Crime Analysis Unit, School
Resource Officers, and the Special Protects Unit. This Section 2A.84-4 is not intended to preclude
officers who are not in the Unit from performing necessary or approwiate law enforcement functions
not inconsistent with this Section in accordance with the policies of the Chief of Police and the Police
Department.
(d) The Unit shall actively coordinate with police district captains, the 311 program, and tJ:ze
Department of Emergency Management to respond to reports from witnesses or victims of actual or
suspected crime. including calls for help or service through 311, in the most prompt and comprehensive
manner possible, including through neighborhood foot patrols, which shall be coordinated with district
captains.
Page3
AH 1 r4f}~ i
~: t1.-i
rdiizance ii not intended to affect the existing discretion of the
iJ;:
ft).,: (J:;:
Chief of Police to establish a neighbo.rhood crime unit even if the staffing levels of the Police
Department do not reach the number of 'full duty sworn offi,cers mandated by the Charter. Rather, in
accordance with subsection (a) of Section 2A.84-5. the intent of this ordinance is to require the Chief of
Police to establish such a unit if the Charter-mandated staffing levels are met or exceeded.
Page4
2aw
o,f''i
U &1.
~ri 2 II
r-
t.~ ~
LI
1 i1
reason for the reassignment, w ic 'aistricl stations are affected, and an estimate of when reassigned
()E'.t;':~~;,:::1 ;'[.l.:..~rr
l:.J'F
EL1,."'il .:~:
1
Page5
2~rnJUH2!
eM 4:47
collaboration among Unit officers and community members, (2) development and implementation of
'{':'E.'?: .!t. l-~ T ;-::E;t.J 1 c;1~ tL (~ ::~ r' :.\
neighborhood-specific priorities and strategies to combat criminal activity, and (3) assignment of Unit
1
(2) A list of Penal Code and Police Code sections on which the Unit will focus. With
input from police district captains, communitv members and orr:anizations. and/or Unit officers, the
Police Department shall update the list from time to time so that it remains consistent with the purpose
and intent of the Safe Neighborhoods Ordinance, and shall be responsible for defining and monitoring
training and tactics related to the enforcement strategy.
(3) An annual report to
~he
Unit's work, with a particular focus on disparate impacts in approaches, citations, and arrests in terms
of race, ethnicity, gender, age, and neighborhood or other geographic measures.
Page6
2ern JUH 21 Pn
Li: ~. 7
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective the day after the
November 8, 2016 election.
SUBMITTED.
~Wt~
Date:
l/J--1)1 l,
t
Date:
I .
ia--rI 2_,,1,ILP
r .
b/~110
Date:
Date:
'
{u{f r
n:\legana\as2016\1600823\01115070.docx
Page 8
f;;~:~?Ef.;:;o;::O,~;::;.~;~;{;;~a;:~::u;~~o~':;;s:,,::;~a:ie~,bmit
comro1 sheers
'.. ;~~
1:1-._
=- ,
-o
:.,
\~mf~(M:~::%'.~Rgrg{:t2t'i1i:'.f'f;i~d:
ff
Ifa ballot argument slCil.<$ that someone other than an Author supporrs or opposes the ballot me~,f) 0 ' \[8'&@.zf ffl;f~~f'~ F,6~i:
. . ~~f;;~ii~~~J1~~:;'.0::3~~>
.'[email protected]:;:~f!:iP. ~.j;~;~::f.:::~
o Fill out one Control Sheet.A. with all unchanging Information (usua:J!y Sections I, 3, and4, be:low).
0
E~7!:E;f;E;[.::!!Jfii!:~r~Fit?:J::!':;~~a;;:~.IS;av. t:'~::i~~~~Jgf~?{f.~f;;;1;.0:;:3;~:;{):7f::
[.f,;,::::::.:::.::::::::..:..~,..;.:__._..---
o Collect all required signatures Control Sheet A or Boron !he Consatf. Form.
o Szd,mit completed Control Sheers and Consent Fonns to the Department ofEiections,
L ARGUM:ENT INFORMATION
PROPOSITION:
-J2.-
0Proponent Argument
Q::>pponent Argument
.B
--------------------
A signature is requiredfor each Author. If there are additional Authors, collect their signatures on Control Sheet. E.
Individual Authors must be registered San Frcu:cisco voters.
For A:ahor organizations, at least one person who is both a priiu:ipal offica ofthe organ.izarion and a registered San Francisco voter must $ign this
auihori:!atianform..
ORGANIZATION (entity)
.~--~~"4~~---
__-?'*"..
0 :::nG N 7 2~. ":0- "'Itri~~...~
.;!;'/-... ..,. --=.~ 1 ".J;:_.. ::....- .:. .: ....;/ ..:{ -:..~{ }J;..rt .. ~~:;...
Who should be listed as Atrth9p{ ..;;Q~y."1i.e0rgaruzanon"";
BBtJt,the officer and the organization
./'; . 'i~::;,.QChec~ if the tit!: o~ identi:fY'.n~: _
_tiqr,_ is for identification purposes
Name of organization:
'
Th'DIVIDUAL
'i
-'1
~i:::.-::~...
.:.'
, . .:. ;-
~-
--
ndiv~
t Qn behalf of
'<.~,:, 1/""'
.....,=-'"'="""'"'
,,-f;~
1:1,.:-:
..- >.--
value fr~ro such"i--ccf~ajttee'~o petform consulting services for tb::it com.m.ittee; and
I have not authorized myna.me or likeness to appear on camp<:fi~ture..or,.ID.advatiSmg that advoc:i.tes for the adoption of this measure.
Y~[J
No[]
Ifthe trUe source ottunds is a recipient committee, list the three largest monetary contn'butors:
a.
b.
c.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------. -
..
6. ARGUMENT TEXT
Argumentte)."t vr.t1l be printed in the Voter InformationPamphlet ex2.ctly as submitted. Please ensure thilt all infonnl'.ltion is legible and correct.
Type the complete text ofthe ballot argument in the space below. Att:l:ch additional pages ifnecessary.
'
Use st:uidard t:xt, or bold, italics, or bold it:ilics for emphasis. Fo!lllatthe text as desired below. or underline anyt:xtthatyou would like to appear in
bold ("B''), italics (''1"'), or bold italics (":SI'} and note this formatting in the left margin. Use clear paragraph spacing.
Include the names of hll Authors, along with any titles or identifying information. This information wi11 count toward the argument's total word coun~
Signature informatio.d 'Will be printed in italics.
Count the nllJllber ofwords in eac:hline ofthe argument and.note the total in the right margin.
The Departn1ent ofElections will not unde.tline argument texi;. print argument tex."t in columns or with other unusual spacing. or print gr:i.phics.
Submitters ofha:o.dw.ritten or hand-edited arguments must sign an acknowledgmentthatthe Dep:u:tro.ent ofElectiom is not responsible for any errors
resultiD.g :from unintentional misinterpretation of the hand"Nritten material
f~or
Form.at:
#Words
per tine
B,I,:SI
Data ;from the FBI show that San Francisco has the highest property crime rate per capita
in the nations' top so cities, jumping 60% since 2010.
Car break-ins increased 31% from 2014, according to Police Department statistics. The
department accepted 25,899 reports of car break-ins in 2015, more than 70 per day on
average.
Don't believe Prop R opponents. Prop R will improve efforts within the Police
Department to save time and resources so officers will spend more time preventing
and investigating crimes.
Opponents of Prop R tried to cut funding at the Board of Supervisors for new
police academy classes that will graduate new police officers to serve our
neighborhoods. Opponents of Prop R have opposed efforts to reach our
voter-mandated police staffing levels.
Prop R was developed with input from the Police Department.
Prop R significantly increases the number of beat cops and bike P?trols assigned to
our neighborhoods, creating.closer relationships with residents and merchants,
identifying problem areas, deterring crime from happening in the first place, and
responding quickly and effectively when a crime does occur.
San Francisco should be a safe city for residents and visitors. Prop R will improve
safety for everyone. Vote yes on Prop R.
Mayor Edwin Lee
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor Malia Cohen
Supervisor Mark. Farrell
Supervisor Katy Tang
n;;
Tot<ll # ofvrords
x $2/word=
+$200.00 =
TOTAL
#of invo.lid sigoaturcs;._ _ _ _ _ __
:< S0.50/sign:iture =
ADJUSTED FEE
C:J
C:J
C:J
C:J
C:J
Receipt#
Check#(s)
#of checks
#of authors
Proofed by:
I
I
Check amount!
# ofp;;ig:es
~I
I
Cash :l.m.Ount/
St:rlf'Toitials
s. J:.. N.
If thr!!re
are additional Authors, collect their signatures on Control Sheet B, and .whmit Control Shff.ets
A and B together.
if a ballar argument sraces that someone other than. an Author supports or opposes the ballot measure,
or agrees with the bal.foc argumenc1 submit a signed Consent Form wirh the Control Sheets.
::I -
-"
L ARGUMENT INFORMATION
ts
PROPOSITION:
roponent Argument
pponent Argument
aid Argument in Favor
~
2-
Label
AUTHOR INFORMATION (sec Sections m and VII oftl1e Guide lo Submitting Bal/otAr~ents)
A signature is required/or each Autltor.
ORGANIZATION (entity)
Name of organization:-------=------------~=------------Who should be listed as Author?
00nly the organization
0Both the officer and the organization
only,. if
(2))
I attest under penalty ofperjuzy that I am an Author of an argwnentbeing submitted for the selection as the:
Proponent Argument for Proposition _l;,_. I am not a Non-supporter of this measure, in that
1 am not a treasurer, officer, or member ofa committee that has made or plans to make expenditures in opposition to this measure.
I have not received or been proc:Used any compensation or thing of value from such a comm.ittee to perform consulting services for that committee; "1Il.d
I have not authorized my name or likeness to appear on campaign literature or in advertising that advocates for the defeat of this measure.
Opponent Argument for Proposition ___ I am not a Supporter of this measure, in that:
I am not a treasurer, offiec:r, or member of:i.cornmittce that has made or plans to make expenditures in support of this mc;isure..
I have not received or been promised any compensation or thing of value :from such a committee to perfonn coo.sulting services for that committee; :md
I have not authorized my name or likeness to appear on campnign 1iterature or ii1 advertising that advoc:::i.tes for the adoption of this measure.
ORGANIZATION (entity)
Nan1eoforganization: _ _ _ _ _ _ _"=-------------=--~----------V1ho should be listed as Author?
Only the organization
0Both the officer and the organization
Check if the title or identifying information is for identification purposes only, if
you are signing as an individual, not ou behalf of an organization
0
0
INDIVIDUAL
Title, if applicable
Signature
I attest under penalty of perjury that I am an Author of an argument being submitted for the.selection as the:
Proponent Argument for Proposition _ _. I am not a Non-supporter of this measure, in that:
I am not a treasurer~ officer, or member of a cormnittee that has made or pl<UlS to make expenditures in opposition to this m~sure.
l have not received or been promisr:d any compensation or thing of value from such a conunittee to pc::rfoon consulting services for that committee; and
I have not authorized my name or likeness to appear on campaign literature or in advertising that advocates for the defeat of this me:.i.sure.
rhave not received or been promised any compensation or thing of value from such a comrruttee to perform consulting services for tbat committee: and
I have not authorized my name or likeness to appear on campaign literature or in advertising that advocates for the adoption of this measure.
Please check one below to indicate whether Author is llil organization or an individual:
ORGANIZATION (entity)
Name of o r g a n i z a t i o n : - - - - - - - = , , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = = - - - - - - - - - - - - W110 should be listed as Author?
Oonly the organization
0Both the officer and the organization
INDIVIDUAL
Title, if applicable
org~ization
Signature
./
2. AUTHOR INFORJ.\1ATION (see Sections m and VIl oftbe Guide lo Submitting Bal/or Arguments)
A signature is requiredfor each Author.
Jnd.ivUJ.ual Authors mJJSt he registered San Francisco 1'0ierJ'.
For Author organi::atlons, at lea.st one person who is both a pn'ncipal. officer of the organi::atlon and a registered San Francisco voler must sign thb
authori:aiion.form.
ORGANIZATION (entity)
Name of organization:~~~~~~~;:::,,.-~~~~~~~~~~~-:::=--~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who should be listed as Author?
00nlythe organization
0Both the
INDIVIDUAL
dress no . . coxes;
Declaration Related to Proponent and Opponent Arguments (SF MEC 535 (b) (2))
I attest under penalty of perjury that I am an Author of an argument being submitted for the selection as the:
Proponent Argument for Proposition~- I am not a Non-supporter of this measure, in that:
I am not a treasurer} officer, or member of a committee that has made or plans to ma.kt expenditures in opposition to this measure.
1 b:ive not received or been promised any compensation orthing of value from such a committee to perform consulting serviCes for tbzt committee; and
I have not authorized my name or J.il;:coess to appear on campaign liter.mire or in advertising that advocates fortbe defeat ofthis measure.
Opponent Argument for Proposition _ _. I am not a Supporter of this measure, in that:
I am not a. tteasurer, offic:er., or member of a committee tbat has made or plans to make expenditures in support of this measure.
I have not received or been promised any compensation or thing of value from such a committee to perform consulting services for that committee; and
I have not authorized my n:i.me or like:ness to appear on c.:impaign liter.1ture or in advertising that advocates for the adoption of this mc::isure,
ORGANIZATION (entity)
INDIVIDUAL
San
Declaration Related to Proponent and Opponent Arguments (SFMEC 535 (b) (2))
I attest under penalty ofperjurythat I am an Author of an argument being submitted for the selection as the:
Proponent Argument for Proposition
I am not a Non-supporter ofthis measure, in that
I am not a treasUrer, officer, or member of a comniittee thathas ma.de or plans to make expenditures in opposition to this measure.
I have not received or been promised any compensation or thing ofvalue from such a committee to perform consulting services for that committee; and
I have not authorized my name or 1ikeness to appear on campaign literature or in advertising that advocates for "the defeat of this measure.
Opponent Argument for Proposition _ _ I am not a Supporter of this measure, in that:
I am not a treasurer. officer,. or member of a committee that bas made or plans to m3ke o..-penditures in support of this measure.
I have not received or been promised any compensation or thing of value from such a committee to perform consulting services for that committee: and
I have not authorized my name or likeness to appear on campaign literarure or in advertising that advocates for the adoption of this measure.
L.
0
@) INDIVIDUAL
Declaration Related to Proponent and Opponent Arguments (SF MEC S3S (b) (2))
I attest under penalty ofperjury that I am an At$or of an argument being submitted for the selection as the:
Proponent Argument for Proposition
I am not a Non-supporter of this measure, in j:hat:
I am not a treasurer. officer, or member cf a committee that has made or phms to make expenditures in opposition to this measure.
JS.
I have not received or been promised any compensation or thing ofvah1e from such a committee to perform consulting services for that committee; and
r have not authorized my name or likeness to appear on campatgn literature or Io advertising that advocates for the defeat of this measure.
Opponent Argument for Proposition _ _. I am not a Supporter of this measure:, in that:
I am uot ~treasurer, officer, or member of a committee that has made or plans to make expendltures in support of this measure.
r have not received or been promised any compenso.tion or thing of value from such a committee to perform consulting scn'ices for that committee; and
I have not m.1:thori:zed my o:u:nc or liken.es:; to appc:ir on c.ampaiz:o, litcr.iture or in advertising that advocates for the adoption of this measure.
3. ARGUMENT TEXT
Argument text below must be as it appears on Ballot J\:rgument Control Sheet A:, copy the text from Control Sheet A and paste it below. !fthere is a
discrepo.ncy, fuc published argumeot w.iU match tbe original submission co. Ballot ..<\rgument C<Jntrol Sheet ,p._
..f__
electi~n
Format:
B,~
#Words
Bl
per line
Data from the FBI show that San Francisco has the highest property crime rate per
capita in the nations' top 50 cities, jumping 60% since 2010.
Car break-ins increased 31 percent from 2014, according to Police Department statistics.
The department accepted 25,899 reports of car break-ins in 2015, more than 70 per day
on average.
Don't believe Prop R opponents. Prop R will improve efforts within the Police
Department to save time and resources so officers will spend more time preventing
and investigating crimes.
Opponents of Prop R tried to cut funding at the Board of Supervisors for new
police academy classes that will graduate new police officers to serve our
neighborhoods. Opponents of Prop R have opposed efforts to reach our votermandated police staffing levels.
Prop was developed with input from the Police Department.
Prop R significantly increases the number of beat cops and bike patrols assigned to
our neighborhoods, creating closer relationships with residents and merchants,
identifying problem areas, deterring crime from happening in the first place, and
responding quickly and effectively when a crime does occur.
San Francisco should be a safe city for residents and visitor~. Prop R will improve
safety for everyone. Vote yes on Prop R.
Mayor Edwin Lee
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor Malia Cohen
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor KatyTang
I
Total Word Coant
\,
\.,,
"\
\'':-,
'\
SFMTA
;!\.priu 15, 2016
Municipal
Transportation
Agency
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Key Findings
Introduction
Methodology in Detail
Conclusion
111
12
17
Acknowledgments
KEY.FINDINGS
2015 was the first year San Francisco's bike counter on Market
Street reached 1 million bike trips logged, representing a 25
percent increase over 2014.
o The highest weekday bike count for the year was May
27, 2015 with 4,537 bikes counted, which is a 12 percent
increase over 2014's recorded high of 4,050 bikes on
August 7, 2014.
The Marke:t St. bike counter logged more than 1 million trips in 2015, .a 25%
increase over 2014 and a record rwmber since its instali(1tion in May 2013.
INTRODUCTION
M-atho,1fo>!cgy
This report is unique in comparison to past reports
because it draws bicycle count data from three
different sources:
1. Automated bike counters at 15 locations logging
bike trips 24/7, 365 in 2014 and 2015
2. Manual bike counts collected at 80 locations
from 4:30 - 6:30 p.m. in September 2015
3. American Community Survey data from 2005 to
2014 by the U.S. Census Bureau
~~~~~============-------------------------------------------