CM-01 0

ATTJORNEYOR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY(Name, State Bar number, and address):

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

San Francisco, CA 94102

P lock vs. Arntz

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
r'

Unlimit ed
(Amount
demanded
exceeds $25,000)

CASE NUMBER:

Complex Case Designation

Limited
(Amount
demanded is
$25,000 or less)

Counter

Joinder

Filed with first appearance by defendant

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)

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)

Other Pl/PD/WO {Personal Inj ury/Property

Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort
Asbestos (04)

D
D
D
D

Product liability (24)

Medical malpractice (45)
Other Pl/PD/WD (23)

Non-Pl/PD/WO (Other) Tort

D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Business tort/unfair business practice (07)

Civil rights (08)
Defamation (13)
Fraud (16)
Intellectual property (19)
Professional negligence (25)

Breach of contract/warranty (06)

Provisionally Complex Civil Lit igation

(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

Rule 3.740 collections (09)

Other collections (09)

Insurance coverage (18)

Other contract (37)

Real Property
Eminent domain/Inverse
condemnation (14)
Wrongful eviction (33)
Other real property (26)

D
D
D

Unlawful Detainer
Commercial (31 )

D
D
D

Wrongful termination (36)

Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)

Construction defect (10)
Mass tort (40)
Securities litigation (28)
Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
Insurance coverage claims arising from the
above listed provisionally complex case
types (41)

Enforcement of Judgment

Enforcement of judgment (20)

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

Drugs (38)

RIC0(27)
Other complaint (not specified above) (42)

Miscellaneous Civil Petition

D
D

Asset forfeiture (05)

Petition re : arbitration award (11 )

[ZJ

writ of mandate (02)

Other employment (15)

D
D
D

Residential (32)

Judicial Review

Other non-Pl/PD/WO tort (35)

Employment

D
D

D
D
D
D
D

D
D

Partnership .and corporate g'overnance (21 )

Other petition (not specified above) (43)

Other judicial review (39)

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:

Large number of separately represented parties

d.

b.

e.

c.

Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve
Substantial amount of documentary evidence

f.

a.

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.O

4. Number of causes of action (specify):

monetary

Large number of witnesses

Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

b. [Z] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief

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

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judicial Council of California
CM -01O [Rev. July 1, 2007]

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740;

Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3. 1O
www.courtinfo. ca.gov

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORN1A

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Jeremy Pollock
90 I Broderick St #5
San Francisco, CA 94115
T: (510)207-9745
Email: pollock.jeremy@gmail.com
JEREMY POLLOCK
Petitioner/Plaintiff,

Pet~+\ol\ ~,..-
wr:~ of fV\ Q~JCt k>

VS.

JOHN ARNTZ, Director, San Francisco

Department of Elections
Respondent/Defendant.
and

CPF-16-515245

EDWl N LEE, Mayor of the City and County of

San Francisco, SCOTT WIENER, MALIA
COHEN, MARK FARRELL, and KATY TANG,
members of the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors
Real Party in Interest.

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

Proposition R makes no reference to "bike patrols," "bicycle patrols," or any related

phrases or concepts.
5. As bicycle advocates, regular bike riders, and members of the San Francisco Bicycle
Coalition, Petitioner is concerned that this false statement would mislead other voters
who support bike riding into falsely believing that Proposition R would increase the
number of San Francisco Police Department officers assigned to bicycle patrols.

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.

Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

12. Where measures are placed on the ballot by the legislative body, "the legislative
body, or any member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body, or
any individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide association
of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations, may file a written
argument for or against any city measure." (Elec. Code 9282). These "written

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

Neighborhood Crime Unit would "curtail and investigate" crimes including

"California Penal Code Sections .. .488 (Theft of Property, including bicycle thefts)."
20. On August 22, 2016, the real parties in interest submitted the Rebuttal to the
Opponent ballot argument ("the ballot argument") for Proposition R, attached as
Exhibit 2.
21. The ballot argument includes a statement that Proposition R, "significantly increase
the number of beat cops and bike patrols assigned to our Neighborhoods."
22. Regular bicycle riders are a growing constituency in the San Francisco electorate.
23. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's Bicycle Count Report 2015
("the MTA's Bicycle Count Report"), attached as Exhibit 3. The MTA's Bicycle
Count Report states that U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey shows
that "San Francisco's bike mode share for commute trips made within the city
reached 4.4 percent in 2014. This represents a steady increase from 3.9 percent in
2013 and a doubling in mode share since 2006."
24. The MTA's Bicycle Count Report also found that the Municipal Transportation
Agency's manual bicycle count at the same 19 intersections increased from under
4,000 in 2006 to over 10,000 in 2013, 2014, and 2015.
25. The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition is a non-profit corporation with offices in San
Francisco with the purpose to "promote a healthy environment and community
including specifically the promotion of the bicycle for everyday transportation."
26. As members of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, regular bicycle riders in San
Francisco, and advocates for bicycle riding, Petitioner has a vested interest in
promoting bicycle riding in San Francisco.
27. The false and misleading statement in the ballot argument for Proposition R falsely
believing that Proposition R would increase the number of San Francisco Police
Department officers assigned to bicycle patrols.
28. Petitioner has met all the criteria for issuance of relief under these statutes. If the false
and misleading ballot argument is allowed to remain in place, misleading pamphlets
and ballot materials will be printed and distributed to. voters, and Petitioner will suffer
irreparable injury and damage. Thus, Petitioner seeks to have the false and misleading
language in the ballot argument stricken.

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.

Request for Relief

Wherefore, Petitioner demands entry of judgment as follows:

30. For a Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Alternative Writ of Mandate directing
Respondent JOHN ARNTZ to strike the phrase "and bike patrols" from the ballot
argument;
31. For the cost of suit;
32. For attorney's fees as authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure section
1021.5 and other provisions of law; and
33. For all. other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: September 2, 2016

Verifications

I, Jeremy Pollock, hereby declare:

I am a member of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, and a registered voter,
resident, and taxpayer of the City and County of San Francisco. I have read the
foregoing Petition and the contents thereof. The facts alleged in the above Petition are
true to my personal knowledge and belief.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct and that this verification is executed on this 2nd day of
September 2016 in the City and County of San Francisco.

Respectfully submitted,

September 2, 2016

Word Count Certification

I, Jeremy Pollock, certify pursuant to the California Rules of Court, that the
word count for this document is 1,517 words, excluding the attachments permitted
under the rules. This document was prepared in Microsoft Word, and this is the
word count generated by the program for this document.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California, on
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~~

SUBJECT: __The Safe Neighborhoods Initiative_ _ __

The text is listed below or attached:

Signature

of~ponsoring Supervisor(s)

~1

Time Stamp by Clerk's Office:

.)

()

.:~~c3'

.1z::::::
L!_ L:_

.~:~

:...;
,.

;J,,

~~:

:JE

;-.. _

11Jr! J! ....11'~ 2 1
2Bt11.._,~
I

rn.i 1 ,

f~~1L}

'

PROPOSED INITIATIVE dRotNA~ce'oL8'e' SUBMITTED BY FOUR OR MORE

SUPERVISORS TO THE VOTERS AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2016 ELECTION.
[Under Charter Section 2.113(b), this measure must be submitted to the Board of Supervisors
and filed with the Department of Elections no less than 45 days prior to deadline for
submlssion of such initiatives to the Department of Elections set in Municipal Elections. Code
Section 300(b).]

[Initiative Ordinance Administrative Code - Neighborhood Crime Unit in Police Department]

w

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:

Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times New Roman font.
Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times ,.\lcw Roman.fem.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code
subsections or parts of tables.

Be it.ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:

Section 1. The Administrative Code is hereby amended by adding Sections 2A.84-1

through 2A.84w7, to read as follows:

SEC. 2A.84wl. TITLE.

Sections 2A.84w] through 2A.84-7 shall be known and cited as the "The Safe Neighborhoods
Ordinance. "

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

2 l f:' l1/1 l.!" 4 1r

i

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~

L~~r l~L~ 1.;'. i i ..:!.

reduce the quality of life in San Francisco.

As a result of an accelerated police hiring plan that includes recent and immediately upcoming
police academy classes in fiscal year 2016-2017. the Citv is on track to meet the Charter-mandated
minimum staffing level of not less than 1,971 full duty sworn officers (Charter Section 4.127) by the end
of2017. This increase in law enforcement presence is expected to hdr;> deter some of this
neighborhood crime, as well as lead to more and faster investigations and prosecutions.
The Police Department has several different units, all of which share partial responsibtlitv for
preventing, investigating, and making arrests related to neighborhood crime. The purpose of this
reorganization and setting ofa minimum -staffing level is to ensure that this important police work is
consolidated within one command structure, <:1:nd receives the staffing necessary to accomplish its
mission.
By creating one consolidated unit with dedicated staffing- the Neighborhood Crime Unit- the
Police Department will be better able to respond to 311 and 911 calls, to proactively police areas of
the City in which neighborhood crime is prevalent, and to work with the Department of Public Health.
the Department of Homelessness and Surwortive Housing. and the Human Services Agency to ensure
that homeless people have access to critical services. such as shelter, housing, and mental health and
drug addiction services.
As the Neighborhood Crime Unit conducts its work. it should develop sophisticated metrics to
not only proactively police the neighborhoods through foot patrols, but also to ensure that their law
enforcement actions are not having disproportionate negative impacts on any one communitv,
specifically communities of color. The Police Commission should hold the Unit accountable in this
regard, and set policy to remedy disproportionate impacts, should any exist.

SEC. 2A.84-3. PURPOSE AND INTENT.

The purpose of the Safe Neighborhoods Ordinance is to do all of the following:

Page2

'lri'c:

";1;

f..Ul~ ,JHJ-";

21 PM~

li: Lil 7

(a)

Create the Nei'?hhorhood Crime Unit:.Within the Police Dep_artment.

(b)

Require minimum staffing levels for the Unit.

{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

ZlllS JUr; 2'b Pi\

(e) The Safe Neighborhoods

~)E?;

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.

SEC. 2A.84-5. CONTROLLER'S CERTIFICATION OF STAFFING AND CHIEF'S

ASSIGNMENTS.
i_a) On or before December 31, 2016, and no less frequently than bv December 31 of each
subsequent year, the Controller shall deliver to the Mav..or. the Board of Supervisors. and the Chief of
Police a report certifying the number of full duty sworn officers employed by the Police Department. If
the Controller's certificatibn finds that on the date of certification there are at least 1,971 full duty
sworn officers. as required by Charter Section 4.127, the Chief of Police shall. in accordance with the
provisions of this Section 2A.84-5 and Section 2A.84-6. assign no fewer than 3% of all sworn personnel
to the Neighborhood Crime Unit. This assignment shall occur no later than 120 days after the
Controller's certification that the numberoffull duty sworn officers meets or exceeds the Charter
requirement.
(_b) Before the reassignment of sworn personnel to the Neighborhood Crime Unit mandated by
subsection (a) occurs, the Chief of Police, within 60 days of the Controller's certification, shall deliver
to the Police Commission a Neighborhood Crime Unit Deployment Plan, which shall specify the
number of personnel at the distinct ranks of officer, sergeant, and lieutenant or above. and the number
of civilian personnel, deploved to the Unit.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the Chief of Police may reassign on a temporary
basis anv officers assigned to the Unit, in order to address an emergency or other urgent law
enforcement matter. The Chief of Police shall report such reassignments to the Police Commission at
its next regularly scheduled meetins. consistent with open meeting noticins requirements, including the

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

officers are expected to return to regular assignments.

(d) If the number of full duty swom officers in the Police Department certified by the Controller
as sp_ecified in subsection (a) is initially less than the Charter-req,uired number. the Chief of Police is
not required to establish the Neighborhood Crime Unit. If the Unit is established but a later
certification by the Controller falls belol-v the Charter-required number, the Chief of Pol~ce is not
required to maintain the Unit. But in either event the Chief of Police would retain the discretion to
have such a unit within the Police Department.

SEC. 2A.84w6. DUTIES OF OFFICERS IN NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME UNIT.

(a) Officers assigned to the Neighborhood Crime Unit shall curtail arzd investigate
neighborhood crimes whose nature, frequency, or pervasiveness impairs the sense of security and
quality of life of those who live or wo_rk in affected neighborhoods. Such crimes include but are not
limited to California Penal Code Sections 211 (Robbery), 459 (Auto Burglary and
Residential/Commercial BitrglaryJ, 484, 487, and 488 (Theft of Property_, including bicycle thefts). 594
(Vandalism), and aggressive/harassing behavior such as Police Code Section 122 (Aggressive Pursuit).
(b) In addition to their policing responsibilities, officers assigned to the Neighborhood Crime
Unit shall also coordinate with the Department of Public Health, Department of Homelessness and
&f,pportive Housing, Human Services Agene,y, and other departments to address violations oflaw
relating to unlawful street behavior, including but not limited to violations of Police Code Sections 22
(Obstructing the Sidewalk), 120-2 (Aggressive Solicitation/Panhandling). and 168 (Promotion of Civil
Sidewalks), with a focus on transitioning people off the streets and into shelter, .housing. and critical
health services.
(c) The Unit shall conduct recurring meetings with or among J2.0lice district captains.
communitv members and organizations, and Unit officers to develop policing priorities and strategies
that include, among other things, (]) a plan for encouraging full and open communication and

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

officers to foot patrols.

(d) No later than 120 davs after the Controller's initial certification under subsection (a) of
Section 2A.84-5 that the number of full duty sworn officers meets or exceeds the Charter requirement,
the Police Department shall adopt a comprehensive written policy governing the assignment and
conduct of the Unit. The Police Commission shall review the policy at least annually, but may review
the policy or any of its specific aspects more frequently, at the Commission's discretion. At a minimum,
the policy shall include:
(1) Procedures for officers assigned to the Unit.

(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

Police Commission on data and metrics stemming from the

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.

SEC. 2A.84-7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL.

The Safe Neighborhoods Ordinance may be amended or repealed by a vote of the People at a
Citv election. It may also be amended by an "ordinance passed bv a tvvo-thirds' vote of the Board of
Supervisors and signed by the Mayor, so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the
intent of the Safe Neighborhoods Ordinance.

Page6

2ern JUH 21 Pn

Li: ~. 7

Section 2. Conflicting \R)t!~ti~t1-ME?ftsr.4!:~?:1.)f, this initiative measure and another

measure addressing neighborhood safety or the assignment of police appear on the same
ballot, and a majority of the voters vote in favor of this measure and the other measure but
this measure receives more votes than the other measure, this measure alone shall become
valid, binding, and adopted in its entirety, and the other measure shall be null and void in its
entirety. If a majority of the voters vote in favor of both measures but this measure receives
fewer votes than the other measure, only those provisions of the o~her measure that' are in
direct and irreconcilable conflict with the provisions of this measure shall control, and ail other
provisions of this measure shall become valid, binding, and adopted. The voters expressly
declare this to be their intent, regardless of any contrary language in any other ballot
measure.

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

Ballot Argument Control Sheet A

Everybctl~olai:gwnentmusthaveatlea.staneAuthorSubmitta-sofballotargumentsmustcomplete

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:

fr;:;'/::,~~<,;'::,~~=;:ru:::,::;,:,i~;~;~7,,~~:;i:::::: ;;;:;~~;,~~gthese ~:: r[

. . ~~f;;~ii~~~J1~~:;'.0::3~~>
.'1!~@..aj:;:~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,

electronic cOpies ofthe argument text to public:ations@sfuov.or?.' within 24 hours. '

Rebuttal to Opponent AraumeD!

L ARGUM:ENT INFORMATION
PROPOSITION:

-J2.-

0Proponent Argument
Q::>pponent Argument

.B

--------------------

i QRebuttal to Proponent Argument

QPaid Argument in Favor

Oaid Argument Against

Rebuttal to Opponent Argument

2. AUTHOR INFORMATION (seeSeC!ionsmand VII of the Guide to Submitting Ea/lot Arguments)

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..

Please check one below to indicate whether Author is an organization or an individual:

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/""'

.....,=-'"'="""'"'

Proponent Argument for

I am not a treasurer, officer, or
I have not received or been pro
I have not authorized my name or lilt

,,-f;~

1:1,.:-:

..- >.--

Opponent Argument for Proposition':'-..,:?

I '1Ill not a. treasurer, officer, or member of a coiii.mi
I have uot received or been promised any compe~:

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.

3. INFOR1.Y1ATION FOR PAID ARGU1\1ENTS

(see Section VI ofthe Guide to SwmittingEal/orArgumenlS)

This informadon wt!l be printed in the VoterinformationP<impblet exactly as submitted. Please en.:u.a-e that afl information is lcg;ible: and con-eel If
necessary, the Department ofElections may print shortenednames oforgani;ations listed below due Jo space constraints.
Required statement signed und<r penalty ofperjury (SF MEC 560):

Thetruesource(s) offunds forthe printing fee ofthis argument:._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Is the true source of funds a recipient committee, as defined by California Gove=ent Code Section 82013?

Y~[J

No[]

Ifthe trUe source ottunds is a recipient committee, list the three largest monetary contn'butors:
a.
b.

c.

4. SUBMITTER CONTACT INFORlYlATION

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------. -

..

5. ELECTRONIC COPY INFORMATION

Each ballot arg-..anen.tmust be submirred in hard copywith original .signatures, this official .submission will be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet To
facilitate typesetting, the Department ofElections urges submitters to send an decrronic copy.
- Email argument text to publicatioos@sfgov.org within 24 hours afier submittin"'the hardcoqv; to reflect a1D' changes made during submission.
.. Submit electronic copies via email as a.fillable pdf, as a Microsoft Word attachment to an email. or. ifnecessw;r, in the body ofan email.
l'lease use descriptive .sul;jectlines and.files names such as: A.-rehuttal to opponenror E-No-15.

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

The undersigned Author(s) of this ballot argument0n

of or Oagainst Proposition for the election to be held in San Francisco on
~J .,..._-\..,, i "/il \l
hereby state that such argument is true and correct to the best of his, her, or their knowledge and belief All Authors of
this argumentare registered to vote in San Francisco.

Keep Text Within the Vertical Lines

Form.at:

#Words
per tine

B,I,:SI

Prop R will reduce neighborhood crime by getting p0/ice walking in our

neighborhoods, developing relationships with the communities they serve, and
de-escalating potential violence.
o

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

Tot:ll Word Count

n;;

Dep::irtment of Elections Use Only

Tot<ll # ofvrords

x $2/word=

+$200.00 =

#of signatures in lieu of:fiUng fee:-------~x SO.SO/signature=

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

Ballot Argument Control Sheet B

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 -

-"

FcP. r~dt~ l :. "

, IL,_,_,

W1S A\J b 2 2 Pr'1 I : l 7

L ARGUMENT INFORMATION

ts

PROPOSITION:
roponent Argument
pponent Argument
aid Argument in Favor

~
2-

()Rebuttal to Proponent Argument

@lebuttal to Opponent Argument
QPaid Argument Against

Label

AUTHOR INFORMATION (sec Sections m and VII oftl1e Guide lo Submitting Bal/otAr~ents)
A signature is required/or each Autltor.

Indivl.d.ual Authors must be registered San Francisco voters.

For A11rhor organi.;;arions, at least one person who is both a prindpal officer o/the organ.i::ation and a registered San Francisco voter must sign tfu's
a:uthorizationfonn.

Please check one below to indicate whether Author is an organization or an individual:

ORGANIZATION (entity)
Name of organization:-------=------------~=------------Who should be listed as Author?
00nly the organization
0Both the officer and the organization

D Check if the title or identifying info

only,. if

you are signing as an individual, not on

ess ('no . . oxes

Declaration Related to Proponent and Opponent Arguments

(SF MEC 535 (b)

(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.

Please check one below to indicate whether Author is an organization or an individual:

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

Printed name (Aut.hor organization's principal officer~ or individi1al Aut.hor)

Title, if applicable

Signature

San Francisco Residco:tial Address (no P.O. boxes)

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 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.

Opponent.Argument for Proposition _ _. I am not a Supporter of tltis measure, in t11at:

I am not a treasurer, officer, or member of a comm5tt:ee th:it has made or plans to make CA1'cnditures in support of this measure.

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

D Check if tbe title or identifying information is for identificatiou purposes only, if

INDIVIDUAL

you are signing o.s an individual, not on beh:ilfofan

Printed name (Author organization's principal officer, or individual Author)

Title, if applicable

org~ization

Signature

San Francisco Residential Address (no P.O. boxes)

Ballot Argument Control Sheet B

./

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.

Please check one below to indicate whether Author is an organization or an individual:

ORGANIZATION (entity)
Name of organization:~~~~~~~;:::,,.-~~~~~~~~~~~-:::=--~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who should be listed as Author?
00nlythe organization
0Both the

D Check if the title or identifying information is

you are siguing as an individual, not on behalf of

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,

Please check one below to indicate whether Author is an organization or an individual:

ORGANIZATION (entity)

Nam.eoforganization:~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Who should be listed as Author?

INDIVIDUAL

Only the organization

0Both the officer and the organization

Check if the title or identifying information is for

you are siguing as an individwil, not on behalf of an

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.

Please check one below to indicate whether Author is an organization or an individual:

'.'ORGANIZATION (entity)

Nameoforganization:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Who should be listed as Author?

Oonly the organization

0
@) INDIVIDUAL

0Both the officer and the organization

Check if the title or identifying infoxmation is for identification purposes only, if

you are siguing as an individual, not on behalf of an organza

Ballot Argument Control Sheet B

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

The undersigned Awthor(s) of this ballot argument.Qi in favor of or

against Proposition
_for the
to be held in San Francisco on
IJ pvs.....l..r '\' ">-0 i G hereby state that such. argument is true and correct to the best of his, her, or their knowledge and belief. All Authors of
th.is argumentar~ registered to vote in San Francisco.

Keep Text Within the Vertical Lines

Format:
B,~

#Words

Bl

per line

Prop R will reduce neighborhood crime by getting police walking in our

neighborhoods, developing relationships with the communities th.ey serve, and deescalating potential violence.
0

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

\,
\.,,

"\

Ballot Argument Control Sheet B

\'':-,
'\

SFMTA
;!\.priu 15, 2016

Municipal
Transportation
Agency

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Key Findings

Introduction

Methodology in Detail

How Many People Are Biking?.

Where Are People Biking?

When Are People Biking?

Conclusion

111

Appendix A: Manual Count Volumes

12

Appendix B: Bicycle Counts By Location

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.

Market Street Barometer 2015

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.

According to the American Community Survey, bike mode

share for commute trips made by San Francisco residents
increased to 4.4 percent in 2014.

The 15 automated bike counters found that weekday bike trips

in San Francisco increased by 8.5 percent from 2014 to 2015.
o

More than 10,000 bikes were counted at the 15 automated

counters on an average weekday.

85 percent of bicycle improvements made in 2010 - 2014 are

located in neighborhoods that have grown to have more than
the citywide 4.4 percent bicycle commute mode share.

In 2015, October had the highest monthly bike ridership

with approximately 322,000 bikes logged at the 15 locations
monitored by automated bike counters.

Morning bike commute volumes are relatively concentrated,

peaking between 8 - 9 a.m., but evening bike commute
volumes are more spread out without a clear peaking point.

There are an estimated 82,000 bike trips in San Francisco per

day.

*Counts account for every dziy of the week In 2015.

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

Since 2006, the San Francisco Municipal

Transportation Agency (SFMTA) has conducted
annual bicycle counts at key intersections during the
evening peak period.
This information has helped in making policy and
planning decisions by illustrating where bicycle
activity is highest, where there are opportunities for
improvement, and how the SFMT.A'.s programs and
projects affect travel behavior.
In January 2012, the SFMTA Board of Directors
approved the 2013-2018 SFMTA Strategic Plan,
which documents the vision, mission, goals, and
objectives for the agency. Tracking bicycling volumes
and trends in San Francisco supports the SFMTA:s
Strategic Plan Goals, which build upon the city's
Transit-First Policy to prioritize ways of traveling
other than driving a car.

San Francisco has been experiencing significant

population and employment growth for several
years.
Understanding bicycling trends will continue to be
important given. projections by the Association of
Bay Area Governments that San Francisco will gain
over 100,000 new households and over 190,000
new jobs by 2040.
Since San Francisco has limited street space,
increasing bicycle ridership, walking and transit trips
is critical to accommodate growth, especially in the
densest parts of the city.

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

~~~~~============-------------------------------------------