Category: Update

By John Barned-Smith : sfchronicle – excerpt

Longtime San Francisco politico Quentin Kopp has filed a ballot measure to amend the City Charter to have district supervisors elected in what is essentially an at-large process.

Longtime San Francisco politico Quentin Kopp has proposed a ballot measure that could dramatically upend the city’s Board of Supervisors — and the way voters choose who sits on it.

Last week, he filed a ballot measure to amend the City Charter to have district supervisors elected in what is essentially an at-large process.

The ballot measure would make all registered voters eligible to vote for candidates in specified districts, he said…

Kopp and his supporters will need to get signatures of more than 49,000 registered voters, or secure the votes of six city supervisors, by this November, to get the proposal on the ballot in March 2024. If it makes it on the ballot and ends up getting passed, it is likely to be challenged in court, experts told the Chronicle…(more)

From hjta.org

Taxpayer Protection Initiative Qualifies for 2024 Ballot – Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association hjta.org

Taxpayers scored an important victory in February when the secretary of state announced that the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act has successfully qualified for the November 2024 ballot.

A late push for extra signatures, with an assist from thousands of HJTA Members who volunteered their time, was key to collecting a total of 1.4 million raw signatures, enough to exceed the required minimum of nearly 1 million valid signatures of registered voters needed to qualify.

“The Taxpayer Protection Act was written to restore a series of voter-approved ballot measures that gave taxpayers, not politicians, more say over when and how new tax revenue is raised,” explained HJTA President Jon Coupal. “Over the past decade, the California courts have created massive loopholes and confusion in long-established tax law and policy. The Taxpayer Protection Act closes those loopholes and provides new safeguards to increase accountability and transparency over how politicians spend our tax dollars.”

Some of the measure’s key provisions include:

• Require all new taxes passed by the Legislature to be approved by voters
• Restore two-thirds voter approval for all new local special tax increases
• Clearly define what is a tax or fee
• Require truthful descriptions of new tax proposals
• Hold politicians accountable by requiring them to clearly identify how revenue will be spent before any tax or fee is enacted

The initiative, backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association together with the California Business Roundtable and the California Business Properties Association, would close loopholes by amending the state constitution, overriding any conflicting court rulings that were based on a disputed interpretation of the constitution’s current language.

One such State Supreme Court ruling, in a 2017 case known as California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, has led to decisions in lower courts declaring that some local taxes for special purposes had passed, even though they received less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13. If the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act is approved by voters, many of these taxes would have to go back on the ballot again and would expire unless approved by a two-thirds vote.

For more information on this important initiative, visit RightToVoteOnTaxes.com.

By Tim Redmond :48hills – excerpt

Breed’s plan, drafted with little community input, would do nothing for the city’s affordable housing needs; supes aren’t going along.

Mayor London Breed is proposing some pretty sweeping new rules to make it easier for for-profit developers to make money building housing in San Francisco. But nobody from the Mayor’s Office showed up at the Board of Supes hearing today, leaving a lone planning staffer to answer questions that in many cases he had no qualifications or authority to answer.

Neither of the supes co-sponsoring the bill, Matt Dorsey and Joel Engardio, was there for the start of the hearing, and they sent no staff to the hearing and then left for another appointment…

Aaron Starr, the director of legislative affairs for the Planning Department, had to represent both his agency, which had its own comments on the measure, and Mayor London Breed, who offered a long list of last-minute amendments

Sup. Dean Preston said that he had reached out to the Mayor’s Office, and “we were told that nobody would be here.”

It was, Sup. Aaron Peskin said, a “strange dynamic,” unprecedented in his more than 14 years in public office.

That was just the start to a hearing overwhelmingly dominated by community and tenant groups strongly opposed to the mayor’s approach…(more)

CSFN may consider writing a letter on this one. It is obvious that the bill removes more citizen’s rights and reduces affordable options for developments in San Francisco. These are questionable actions for city leaders who want the city to be a shiny example of world peace and prosperity on the world stage. Who is running this show that is driving residents and businesses out of the city while selling it off the highest bidders?

by GILARE ZADA and CHUQIN JIANG : missionlocal – excerpt (includes interactive map)

San Francisco’s public healthcare network consists of 14 primary clinics, offering general and specialized services to thousands of annual patients.

We wanted to know: How does the city allocate public health resources to different neighborhoods and populations?

And we found out: Most of San Francisco’s health clinics are in its eastern neighborhoods and downtown — the areas with the highest rates of disease and risky behavior, like smoking and drinking. Most of the funding goes to these clinics, too…

“Each clinic has its own sort of slightly different scope.”

The visualization shows a comprehensive directory of all the health data we compiled, including clinic locations, their budgets and staffing resources, and the specialized care that some of the locations offer… (more)

By Sarah Ravani : sfchronicle – excerpt

AB1033, by Assembly Member Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, allows cities to decide whether property owners can sell ADUs separately, as condos, from the primary home.

Two state bills that could boost construction of ADUs, or accessory dwelling units, moved to the governor’s desk Monday.

AB1033, by Assembly Member Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, allows cities to decide whether property owners can sell ADUs separately, as condos, from the primary home.

Another Ting measure, AB976, also passed and would permanently ban local ordinances that require property owners to live in their ADU — effectively removing barriers that would otherwise prohibit ADUs to be used as rental properties…

If Gov. Gavin Newsom signs AB1033 into law, it would repeal an existing law that prohibits separate sales of ADUs and instead allow homeowners to get loans to build ADUs as opposed to repaying loans through rental income. The Bay Area Council cosponsored AB1033 and said the measure allows local governments to “create more affordable for-sale options.”

Supporters for AB976 say ADUs are critical for expanding affordable housing options. Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, has said that ADUs can expand the housing supply through the state…(more)

By Mike Ege : sfstandard – excerpt

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved permits for more concerts in Golden Gate Park to be run by Outside Lands organizer Another Planet Entertainment Tuesday, clearing the way for new, separately branded, “headliner-driven” shows at the park’s Polo Fields the weekend after the music festival for at least the next three years.

The board voted 10-1 to approve the concert permits, which proved controversial, with some west-side residents concerned about additional traffic impacts around the park, after the proposal was forwarded to the full board by the Budget and Finance Committee.

“This is great news for San Francisco, which has long been a destination for music, festivals and entertainment,” said Mayor London Breed in a statement.

Supervisor Connie Chan, who represented the Richmond District, was the sole vote against the permits. She reiterated concerns she raised at the budget committee about adverse impacts to the neighborhood…(more)

By Dave Osgood, (RPNA)

We filed four appeals (financed by CSFN) to keep the 83-year-old Rincon Annex from being further disfigured by modern new signs. I am pleased to announce our efforts have been successful. The signs will not be installed, but no thanks to the SF Planning Department (which issued the permits). We can’t even thank the members of the Appeals Board. It was the process of exchanging briefs and public testimony that led the building owners to agree to cancel all four permits the morning before the Appeals Board voted. The owners have even agreed to reimburse us the $700 in filing fees. (I will turn the check over to the treasurer – when we actually get it.)

Some takeaways:

The Planning Department clearly has no fire in its belly to protect landmarks. They will exploit any loophole or vague code language to give out-of-town developers what they want:

• An ordinance passed in 2018 specifically to streamline the permitting of affordable housing is now being cited by the department as justification for streamlining permits across-the-board.
• The department is ignoring Article 11 of the planning code which is specifically designed to protect the 100+ historic buildings downtown.
• The department is also ignoring the protections of code Section 1006.6.

The Board of Appeals asked the city attorney to opine on these three sections of code, but her report remains sealed based on attorney-client privilege.

There is no reason to think Mayor Breed’s three appointees to the Board of Appeals would have supported our appeals. They generally stay mum during the hearings, but one Breed appointee said he thought the signs were OK, and another said the votes probably weren’t there. They apparently weren’t much interested in the testimony from the public and distinguished experts. Even viewing the PBS NewsHour segment about the demise of such landmarks, filmed at Rincon Annex last winter, did not phase them.

The Secretary of the Interior‘s standards for historic buildings are often cited for guidance, but we learned the SF Planning Department uses the wrong set. There are actually four separate sets of SOI standards–including preservation and rehabilitation. Since Rincon Annex is pretty well preserved, the preservation standards should have been used. Instead, the Planning Department provided the board with pages and pages of analysis of the rehabilitation standards (which often don’t apply).

It was also disturbing that the assistant zoning administrator testified that there are actually no restrictions on the size and number of signs allowed on buildings downtown (where there are more than 100 landmarks). And a document submitted by the Rincon Annex owner makes it clear that all buildings downtown fall under the same weak guidelines.

This episode is (almost) another example of the blanding of San Francisco. Thanks go to Supervisor Peskin for his support and to the 20 individuals who wrote and called in to the hearing.

By Emily Landes : therealdeal – excerpt

Industrial broker says Bayshore Corridor is already overrun with facilities

San Francisco’s Department of Homeless and Supportive Housing has entered negotiations on a lease to create homeless housing at an industrial site off Bayshore that would put 60 cabins and about 20 safe parking RV spots at the 2.25-acre site of a former drywall contractor.

The city says it is meeting the needs of the community by providing additional housing in an area with the second-largest homeless population in the city But industrial owners in the neighborhood say a third supportive services site in the immediate vicinity is too much to bear — and they are looking at their legal options.

HSH proposes to lease the property at 2177 Jerrold Avenue “to help address unsheltered and vehicular homelessness in the area.” The department is in the early stages of development and still needs authorization on the project, according to HSH representative Emily Cohen, who could not yet comment on lease terms or the cost of building the tiny homes. The Board of Supervisors will need to approve the lease when it returns from summer recess in September, she added.

More than 1,100 people were experiencing homelessness in District 10, which includes the Bayshore Corridor where the site would be located, according to the 2022 Point in Time homelessness count. District 6, which includes South of Market and the Tenderloin, is the only district with more unhoused people at more than 3,800.

Shelter spill-over

The department recently issued a notification to neighbors about the proposed lease and will host an initial public meeting on Aug. 17 to discuss it further, she said. Overall, she has heard “general support from the community as people are invested in having alternative places for people living on the streets of the neighborhood to go.” …

“The city is called constantly to help resolve the problem,” he said. “They do absolutely nothing.”…(more)

RELATED:

New shelter slated for Bayview awaits supervisors’ approval

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Ruling could be a blow to billionaire efforts to take control of San Francisco.

The local news media have largely ignored a critical California Supreme Court decision last week that could have a significant impact on any effort by the tech billionaires to replace district elections of San Francisco supervisors with an at-large system.

There’s no doubt that groups like Together SF and Grow SF, funded almost entirely by very rich people who want to take control of the city, have as part of their agenda the repeal of district elections…

But in the case of Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, the Court ruled, in essence, that citywide elections by definition dilute the power of minority groups and are a violation of state law…(more)