« HMB RAPIST DENIED PAROLE |
| CHASING THE GREEN FLASH AT SUNSET »
Posted at 01:17 PM in Government & Politics | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'm sure people living in RVs are not welcome on our streets. But that doesn't mean they won't appear.
Wm. Boyce |
August 23, 2021 at 08:46 PM
How many preventable lawsuits has the City of Pacifica paid for over the past 10 years?
Jay Bird |
July 22, 2021 at 08:41 AM
I need to correct my earlier comment. Depositions were taken from Ryan Marquez, Chief Steidle, and Kevin Woodhouse. The evidentiary hearing is canceled. The city is ordered to include a link to its interactive map of allowable OSV parking on its OSV website page(s), and the city is ordered to include a link to a list of streets that are allowable for OSV parking (“"Allowable Parking List"”) on its OSV website page(s).
Peter Loeb |
July 16, 2021 at 08:30 AM
It seems the city attorney has been giving bad advice, as she did last fall when she was more concerned about protecting the city from being sued by a developer instead of actually following CEQA law. Isn’t it ironic that this comment is missing from the video recording of the council appeal hearing?
Christine Boles |
July 15, 2021 at 09:26 PM
The linked document is the latest move by the city in this lawsuit. It's too complex to explain the whole thing here. A quick read shows that the city has agreed to publish a list of streets where you can legally park an RV, which is what the judge wanted. It's also what I said in the City Council meeting where the council approved amendments to the Oversized Vehicle (OSV) ordinance. The city attorney said that's not how laws are written. It looks like the city has agreed to provide this info, despite the city attorney's comment. The judge also wanted to take testimony from the city police chief, the city civil engineer, and the city manager. This document says that the parties have agreed not to do this. In summary, the city did not want to provide info about where you can legally park an RV but has now agreed to provide that info. And the judge wanted to take testimony from the police chief and other city staff, but the city didn't want that to happen because the judge was clearly looking for evidence that city staff were not just concerned about safety but wanted to make it illegal to park RVs on city streets. The city did not want that hearing to happen so it agreed to make the info available about where you can legally park your RV in exchange for the judge not holding a hearing to take testimony from the police chief and other city staff. This is my summary and interpretation. I’m certain that the city’s attorneys would disagree with my interpretation. But that’s what attorneys do.
Peter Loeb |
July 15, 2021 at 05:38 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address