sf.citi Voter Guide: November 2022 Election in San Francisco

Prop A: Retiree Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment; Retirement Board Contract with Executive Director

Sponsored By: Supervisors Ahsha Safai, Matt Dorsey, Rafael Mandleman, Myrna Melgar, Shamann Walton, Aaron Peskin, Dean Preston, Hillary Ronen, and Gordon Mar

Notable Supporters: Supervisors Connie Chan and Catherine Stefani, San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

Notable Opposition: None

If passed, what will Prop A do? Proposition A would amend the City Charter to make it easier for city employees who retired before November 1996—or their qualified survivors and beneficiaries—to receive their supplemental cost-of-living benefits. This charter amendment achieves this by eliminating the condition that requires the City’s pension system— San Francisco Employee Retirement System (SFERS)—to be fully funded before the City can provide the supplemental cost-of-living benefits to members of SFERS that retired before November 1996. Additionally, the affected members would receive increased monthly COLAs for the five years they did not receive supplemental cost-of-living benefits due to the aforementioned full funding requirement.

To provide further background on the City’s pension benefits, here’s how the City ended up in this situation. The City’s pension provided a basic COLA to retirees for decades, but then San Francisco voters approved a supplemental cost-of-living benefit for retirees in 1996. This supplemental benefit represented an additional payment to the basic COLA retirees already received. But later, in 2011, voters passed a charter amendment that required SFERS to be fully funded based on the market value of the previous year’s assets before retirees could receive their supplemental benefits. This 2011 charter amendment eventually went to the courts, where they determined that the full funding condition required to disperse supplemental benefits only applied to SFERS members who retired before November 1996.

Talk to me about the $$$. City Controller Ben Rosenfield’s analysis of Proposition A found that it would cost the City around $8 million annually for ten years, with $5 million coming from the City’s General Fund.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
If this measure passes, it will provide city employees who retired before 1996—and their beneficiaries—guaranteed supplemental cost-of-living benefits. This critical support and extra benefits to make up for the supplemental benefits they did not receive will go a long way to help these individuals push through the current economic uncertainty, rising inflation, and San Francisco’s high cost of living. The pandemic has only exacerbated existing disparities in the City, putting additional strain on many, particularly those on a fixed income like many retirees. For these reasons, sf.citi recommends voting “yes” on Proposition A to restore long overdue benefits to affected retirees.

Prop B: Public Works Department and Commission, Sanitation and Streets Department and Commission

Sponsored By: Supervisors Aaron Peskin, Connie Chan, and Rafael Mandelman

Notable Supporters: Mayor London Breed, City Administrator Carmen Chu, Supervisors Catherine Stefani, Dean Preston, Matt Dorsey, Hillary Ronen, and Myrna Melgar, Assessor-Recorder Joaquin Torres, BART Directors Bevan Dufty and Janice Li, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Women's Political Committee, San Francisco Apartment Association, San Francisco Tenants Union, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Travel Association, Livable City, Friends of the Urban Forest

Notable Opposition: Assemblymember Matt Haney, Supervisors Shamann Walton, Gordon Mar, and Ahsha Safai, Laborers Local 261

If passed, what will Prop B do? Proposition B would amend the 2020 voter-approved measure (also Proposition B, conveniently), which split the Department of Public Works (DPW) into two separate departments—the Department of Sanitation and Streets (SAS) and DPW. This measure would eliminate SAS and return the power and duties of SAS to DPW.

This measure does not entirely backtrack on the 2020 Proposition B as the Public Works Commission and Sanitation and Streets Commission would stay intact. However, the commissions would have some of their powers modified under the new measure.

Talk to me about the $$$. According to City Controller Ben Rosenfield, reversing the decision to build out SAS would significantly reduce the cost for the City. The City would save money primarily by reducing the staff needed to operate and perform the duties of the new department. The savings would start near $3.5 million in the fiscal year 2023 and decrease to $2.5 million by the following fiscal year.

The charter amendment also removes the requirement for the City Controller’s office to conduct an annual audit on inefficiency and waste in the two departments.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
San Francisco needs to address its street cleanliness seriously. No one disputes that, but the City can accomplish this without creating a new department. Dismantling SAS and transferring its responsibilities back to DPW would eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and save the City millions of dollars. As for oversight of DPW and its street cleaning, the measure would keep the DPW and SAS commissions intact. sf.citi did not support the creation of SAS in 2020, and we still stand by that belief. For those reasons, we recommend voting “yes” on Proposition B.

Prop C: Homelessness Oversight Commission

Sponsored By: Supervisors Ahsha Safai, Shamann Walton, Aaron Peskin, Rafael Mandelman, Gordon Mar, and Catherine Stefani

Notable Supporters: Supervisors Connie Chan, Dean Preston, Matt Dorsey, Myrna Melgar, and Hillary Ronen, Assemblymember Matt Haney

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Republican Party, Grow SF

If passed, what will Prop C do? Proposition C would create the Homeless Oversight Commission to supervise the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH). This new commission would have all of the commission powers and duties outlined in the City Charter, including but not limited to overseeing the HSH’s approximate $672 million budget, setting and approving the department’s goals, appointing members to select HSH committees, and gaining the authority to investigate agency activities. Additionally, this measure would allow the new commission to approve or reject most homelessness and supportive housing contracts before the Board of Supervisors votes on them.

The new commission would consist of seven members serving four-year terms. The Board of Supervisors would appoint three members, and the Mayor would appoint four members —subject to the Board’s approval—to the commission. The measure requires that the members of the commission meet the following qualifications: two members who personally experienced homelessness, one member who previously worked with homeless youth, two members who previously provided services to people experiencing homelessness, one member with expertise in mental health services or drug abuse treatment, and one member who participated in a merchants’, small business, or neighborhood association.

Talk to me about the $$$. Unlike other new commissions, the Homeless Oversight Commission would have a minimal fiscal impact on the City. The salary and operating costs of the new commission would command around $350,000 in annual expenses for the City.

To ensure the effectiveness of homelessness services and improve the integrity and performance of city government, the measure outlines a role for the City Controller’s office to audit services related to homelessness.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Homelessness has plagued San Francisco for years. As arguably the most significant issue facing the City, city officials would pour money into countless homelessness programs and services to seemingly no avail. Then in 2016, the City consolidated its homelessness efforts under a single roof with the creation of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH).

HSH has created and managed many successful programs since its creation. But as the department’s budget rose from $165 million in 2016 to over $700 million in 2022, the City’s lack of visible progress on the homelessness crisis raised legitimate concerns. The concerns surrounding HSH grew even more urgent after the San Francisco Chronicle published a startling exposé on HSH-led programs. San Francisco residents want results on homelessness, and this measure will provide the necessary oversight to ensure that HSH effectively allocates its funding to successful and well-run programs. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition C to deliver the transparency and accountability needed to address the City’s most pressing issue.

Prop D: Affordable Housing – Initiative Petition

Sponsored By: Mayor Breed qualified this measure through the initiative process.

Notable Supporters: Senator Scott Wiener, Supervisor Matt Dorsey, SPUR, GrowSF, SF YIMBY, Greenbelt Alliance, Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco, Housing Coalition (HAC), Nor Cal Carpenters Union, Bay Area Council, YIMBY Action, Mission Housing Development Corporation, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, San Francisco Women’s Political Committee

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Building Trades, United Educators of San Francisco, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Tenants Union, Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO), Unite HERE Local 2, Coalition on Homelessness, Senior and Disability Action

If passed, what will Prop D do? Proposition D would streamline the production for three types of projects: 100 percent affordable housing, educator housing, and mixed-income projects with substantial affordability. Projects would qualify by complying with the existing San Francisco planning and zoning code and meeting one of the following criteria below.

• include 100 percent below market rate units affordable to lower- and middle-income households in San Francisco. The individual units can go up to 140 percent of the area median income (AMI), and the AMI of the total project average is at most 120 percent.
• include ten or more homes and provide more affordable units than required under existing city law. San Francisco currently requires projects to designate 21.5 percent of units as affordable, but through this measure, that designation would increase by 15 percent. For example, if a 100-unit project under existing city law requires 22 affordable units, this measure would require 25.
• Designate 100 percent of its units for households with at least one San Francisco Unified School District or City College employee, with certain household income restrictions.

As part of the requirement to build the project, the measure outlines guidelines for the construction workers involved. Proposition D requires qualifying projects with ten or more units to pay workers prevailing wages. But on projects of 40 or more units, the project sponsor must also pay for health coverage and provide apprenticeship opportunities.

Under Proposition D, the measure also makes amendments to the approval process. it removes discretionary review around the permitting and funding for projects with 100 percent of units for low- and middle-income households. By removing the discretionary review process, housing proposals that meet the requirements mentioned above would be entirely streamlined and would not require a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Additionally, the measure implements strict time frames for the San Francisco Planning Department to approve projects. After a housing project application is submitted, the planning department must approve projects with more than 150 units within 180 days and projects with less than 150 units within 90 days.

Talk to me about the $$$. City Controller Ben Rosenfield’s analysis of Proposition D found that the measure would have a minimal effect on the City’s finances. By streamlining the approval process for affordable housing projects, the shorter construction and development timelines would reduce costs for the City. Conversely, increasing affordable housing developments—which are assessed at a lower value than market-rate housing—could cause a slight dip in property tax revenue.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
As one of the most crucial housing measures to face voters in recent years, this measure would play a critical role in building affordable housing and addressing the City’s housing crisis. The City desperately needs more housing, but it cannot act fast enough as all projects—including 100 percent affordable housing—get tied up in the City’s incredibly lengthy review process. Proposition D seriously addresses this issue by implementing strict timelines for the planning department to approve projects and removing discretionary and CEQA reviews for teacher and low- and middle-income housing.

It can often feel like the City is all talk and no action when addressing the housing crisis. But by passing this measure, more projects can push through the slog that is San Francisco’s permitting process and start construction without the current bureaucratic roadblocks and political posturing. sf.citi recognizes the critical need to expedite and build more affordable housing in the City and recommends voting “yes” on this common sense and pragmatic policy approach.

Note: As competing measures, if voters approve Proposition D and E, the charter amendment with the higher vote total will become law and nullify the other.

Prop E: Affordable Housing – Board of Supervisors

Sponsored By: Supervisors Connie Chan, Gordon Mar, Aaron Peskin, Dean Preston, Hillary Ronen, and Shamann Walton

Notable Supporters: Council of Community Housing Organizations, San Francisco Building Trades, San Francisco Labor Council, United Educators of San Francisco, Unite HERE Local 2, San Francisco Democratic Party, Community Tenants Association, San Francisco Tenants Union, Senior and Disability Action, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

Notable Opposition: GrowSF, Housing Action Coalition (HAC), SPUR, YIMBY Action, Nor Cal Carpenters Union, Greenbelt Alliance

If passed, what will Prop E do? Proposition E would expedite the approval process for producing affordable housing, mixed-income projects, and teacher housing. Housing projects would qualify for streamlined approval under the measure by meeting one of the following criteria:

• All units in a multifamily project must be for households with income up to 120 percent of area median income (AMI). The average household income for all residential units can be at most 80 percent of AMI.
• Mixed-income buildings must allocate 29.5 percent of units as affordable (eight percent more than the current rate). Of these affordable housing units, 20 percent must be three-bedroom units, and 30 percent must be two-bedroom units. Under this measure, a 100-unit project would require 30 affordable units rather than the 22 under existing city law.
• Residential buildings must designate all units for households that include at least one San Francisco Unified School District or City College employee, with certain household income restrictions.

As part of the requirement to build the project, the measure outlines guidelines for the construction workers involved. Proposition E requires qualifying projects with ten or more units to pay workers prevailing wages. But on projects of 25 or more units, the project must also use a “skilled and trained” workforce, meaning workers must come from state-certified apprenticeship programs.

Talk to me about the $$$. City Controller Ben Rosenfield’s analysis of Proposition E found that the measure would have a minimal effect on the City’s finances. By streamlining the approval process for affordable housing projects, the shorter construction and development timelines would reduce costs for the City. Conversely, increasing affordable housing developments—which are assessed at a lower value than market-rate housing—could cause a slight dip in property tax revenue.

sf.citi recommendation: No
This measure does not do enough to build more affordable housing in the City. Despite the measure’s proponents touting it as an affordable housing solution, Proposition E is a cheap political theater tactic that would barely make a dent in the City’s housing stock.

To start, the affordability requirements in this measure go so high that they make projects infeasible for developers to build. With the price of an affordable unit surpassing $1 million in San Francisco, we want to ensure that it still makes financial sense for developers to build, not scare them away.

The measure also does not address one of the City’s main obstacles to building, the permitting process. Unlike its competing measure, Proposition D, this measure does not create project approval timelines or eliminate discretionary and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. By not removing CEQA review, any disgruntled neighbor under Proposition E could still bog down a project in lawsuits for years based on an issue as trivial as how many minutes of shade a new building would cast. So while Proposition E says it will streamline 100 percent affordable housing, in reality, it will not.

San Francisco needs sound policy and measured approaches to streamline and develop affordable housing if we want to address our housing crisis seriously. Proposition E does not achieve this. instead, the measure includes unfeasible requirements and barely addresses the City’s complex and lengthy approval process. For these reasons, we recommend voting “no” on Proposition E.

Note: As competing measures, if voters approve Proposition D and E, the charter amendment with the higher vote total will become law and nullify the other.

Prop F: Library Preservation Fund

Sponsored By: Mayor London Breed, Full Board of Supervisors

Notable Supporters: Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymembers Phil Ting and Matt Haney, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, Assessor-Recorder Joaquin Torres, City College Trustee Alan Wong, BART Director Bevan DuftyFriends of San Francisco Public Library, San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club

Notable Opposition: None

If passed, what will Prop F do? With the Library Preservation Fund set to expire on June 30, 2023, Proposition F would renew the fund for 25 more years. Renewing the fund continues the program's ability to support operational costs and infrastructure improvements for the City’s libraries. The measure would also require the City’s libraries to continue providing the current number of permanent system-wide service hours until 2028, when the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors would gain the opportunity to modify these hours.

Talk to me about the $$$. Passing this measure will continue the existing property tax set-aside that ensures the revenue of 2.5 cents out of every $100 of assessed properties goes exclusively to library materials and services. This set-aside projects to provide the library fund with $83.1 million for the current 2022 to 2023 fiscal year.

Separate from the set-aside, the measure also extends the current requirement that the City funds library services, facilities, materials, and equipment at a baseline level ($112.8 million in the fiscal year 2022 to 2023). The City must adjust the baseline funding number every year based on the City’s discretionary revenues. And if the City faces a budget shortfall of at least $300 million, the measure would temporarily allow the City to stop increases to the Library system’s baseline funding.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
As an essential part of the community, the City’s library system provides services and programming to all residents. Extending the Library Preservation Fund for 25 years would give the library system financial security and help it maintain, operate, and preserve its buildings. If this measure fails, however, the library system would face serious financial distress. To ensure that our libraries remain a vital resource for a long time, sf.citi recommends voting “yes” on Proposition F.

Prop G: Student Success Fund – Grants to the San Francisco Unified School District

Sponsored By: Supervisors Hillary Ronen, Ahsha Safai, Matt Dorsey, Rafael Mandleman, Myrna Melgar, Shamann Walton, Dean Preston, Hillary Ronen, and Gordon Mar

Notable Supporters: Supervisor Connie Chan and Aaron Peskin, Board of Education President Jenny Lam, Public Defender Mano Raju, National Union of Healthcare Workers, San Francisco Democratic Party, United Educators of San Francisco, San Francisco Parent Coalition, San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, San Francisco Labor Council

Notable Opposition: None

If passed, what will Prop G do? Proposition G would divert some of the excess property tax revenue collected in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) into a new set-aside fund called the Student Success Fund. This new fund would pay grants from the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families (DCYF) to schools in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) or the school district itself.

To become eligible for a grant, schools must meet specified criteria. These requirements include having a school council that backs its funding proposal, a community school coordinator or plans to hire one, and a detailed strategy that ensures they serve students and families. DCYF and the Board of Supervisors can also create additional eligibility criteria as they see fit.

Talk to me about the $$$. This Charter Amendment would provide up to $60 million in grants to SFUSD schools for the next 15 years. Schools would receive up to $1 million in grants to support programs to improve academic achievement and address possible emotional trauma resulting from educational and social inequities. Specifically, this could include in-classroom tutors, school nurses, academic coaches, social workers, specialized curriculum, school psychologists, and literacy and math specialists.

The City would ramp up the amount of money placed in the Student Success Fund as follows: $11 million for the fiscal year 2023-2024, $35 million for the fiscal year 2024-2025, $45 million for the fiscal year 2025-2026, and $60 million for the fiscal years from 2026-2027 to 2037-2038.

If the Student Success Fund ends the fiscal year with a surplus, any uncommitted finances in the fund will move to a special reserve account. This account cannot hold more than $40 million at any time, and if it exceeds this limit, the excess revenue will return to the General Fund. On the other hand, if the City faces a budget shortfall of at least $200 million, the measure allows the Mayor and the Board to reduce the money appropriated to the Student Success Fund by at least $35 million. City officials can also curb revenue to the fund if excess ERAF funds are 50 percent less than the preceding year or three years earlier.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Since students returned to the classroom, many people believe the City is failing to meet the educational needs of a shocking amount of students. This measure attempts to alleviate these concerns by allocating the excess ERAF funds (generated based partly on the average daily attendance in each school district) to reinvest in SFUSD students. As we emerge from the pandemic, it’s critically important that we provide ongoing support to students and educators to meet their current and future needs. For these reasons, sf.citi recommends voting “yes” on Measure G.

Prop H: City Elections in Even-Numbered Years

Sponsored By: Supervisors Dean Preston and Aaron Peskin

Notable Supporters: Supervisors Connie Chan, Catherine Stefani, Myrna Melgar, Hillary Ronen, Shamann Walton, and Ahsha Safai, BART Director Bevan Dufty, California Common Cause, , San Francisco Democratic Party, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, San Francisco Labor Council

Notable Opposition: Mayor London Breed, Supervisors, Matt Dorsey, Rafael Mandelman, and Gordon Mar, Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, San Francisco Republican Party

If passed, what will Prop H do? This charter amendment would move the election cycle for city offices from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. As such, the elections in November 20233 for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney, and Treasurer would move to November 2024, and every four years after that. The measure would also lower the signature threshold for initiatives from five percent of the turnout in the last mayoral election to two percent of registered voters.

Talk to me about the $$$. By moving city elections from odd- to even-numbered years, the City would save almost $6.9 million every odd-numbered year. However, the City would lose these savings if a special election occurrs in an odd-numbered year.

sf.citi recommendation: No
While sf.citi supports and advocates for policies that increase civic participation, we cannot support this measure to move city elections to the same ballot as the presidential election and other federal and state races. By making this change to the City’s elections, there is a substantiated concern that the top-of-the-ticket races could overshadow the local races and overcrowd the ballot. San Francisco voters already face voter fatigue, and this measure would only intensify that. We recommend voting “no” on Proposition H.

Prop I: Vehicles on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway

Sponsored By: The Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy Society qualified this measure through the initiative process.

Notable Supporters: California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, City College Trustees Bridgette Davila and Shanell Williams, San Francisco Labor Council, Corporation of the Fine Arts Museums, Open the Great Highway, San Francisco Taxpayer Association

Notable Opposition: Supervisors Hillary Ronen, Matt Dorsey, Gordon Mar, Myrna Melgar, and Dean Preston, San Francisco Democratic Party, WalkSF, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Greenbelt Alliance, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, Livable City, GrowSF, SF YIMBY, SPUR

If passed, what will Prop I do? Proposition I, also referred to as the “Access for all Ordinance,” would reverse the San Francisco Board of Supervisors May 2022 decision to permanently make part of JFK Drive and its connector streets in Golden Gate Park car-free. This measure would require the City to allow private motor vehicles on JFK Drive and its connecting streets at all times, except on holidays as well as Saturdays and Sundays between 6:00 am and 6:00 pm, from April through September. Additionally, this ordinance would open The Great Highway from Skyline Boulevard to Lincoln Way to cars seven days a week.

Talk to me about the $$$. According to City Controller Ben Rosenfield, reversing the decision to keep JFK Drive and the Great Highway car-free could significantly impact the City’s finances. Reopening the Great Highway to cars would incur additional costs as the City would need to revise its current plans to address erosion and climate change impacts along the roadway. These new projects could cost the City as much as $80 million over the next 20 years. Conversely, the effect of bringing cars back to JFK Drive would cut costs for the City. The City would not move forward with a one-time cost of $400,000 for capital improvements to JFK Drive, and the frequency of the Golden Gate Free Shuttle service would reduce from seven to one day a week, saving roughly $250,000 annually.

sf.citi recommendation: No
The widely-supported decision to make the Great Highway and JFK Drive car-free should stay intact. Making these roads car-free improves their safety, accessibility, and overall experience for the public. Plus, it will provide environmental benefits as it takes cars off the road and incentives more alternative modes of transportation. If this measure passes, it will take these benefits away by bringing cars back to these roads and cost the City millions of dollars to develop a new plan to protect the Great Highway from erosion. The City needs more safe public space, not less, and for those reasons, sf.citi recommends voting “no” on Proposition I.

Prop J: Recreational Use of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park

Sponsored By: Supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Myrna Melgar, Matt Dorsey, and Hillary Ronen

Notable Supporters: Mayor London Breed, Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymember Matt Haney, Assessor-Recorder Joaquin Torres, Supervisors Dean Preston and Gordon Mar, BART Director Bevan Dufty, President of SF Board of Education Jenny Lam, Chamber of Commerce, Livable City, California State Parks Foundation, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, Greenbelt Alliance, Friends of the Urban Forest, San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission, San Francisco Democratic Party, WalkSF, Vision Zero Network, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, GrowSF, SF YIMBY, Housing Action Coalition, YIMBY Action, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

Notable Opposition: California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, City College Trustees Shanell Williams and Bridgette Davila, San Francisco Labor Council, Corporation of the Fine Art Museums

If passed, what will Prop J do? Proposition J codifies the Golden Gate Park Access and Safety program. Passed by the Board of Supervisors in May 2022, this program establishes a new recreational space by keeping parts of JFK Drive and some of its connector streets car-free seven days a week. The program would also create one-way streets, bike lanes, and better public access to the park.

Talk to me about the $$$. According to City Controller Ben Rosenfield, implementing the Golden Gate Park Access and Safety Program would incur future costs for the City. To support the program, the City would need a one-time payment of roughly $400,000 for capital improvements, including upgrading park access, traffic engineering, and long-term planning. The measure also continues the daily Golden Gate Park Free Shuttle, costing the City $250,000 annually.

Before these capital improvements can start, they must gain approval from the Mayor and Board of Supervisors.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Making JFK Drive car-free has expanded public space in the City’s popular Golden Gate Park. By codifying this widely-supported decision to ban cars from JFK Drive, San Francisco will improve the park’s safety, accessibility, and overall experience for residents and visitors. Plus, it will provide environmental benefits as it takes cars off the road and incentives more alternative modes of transportation. For these reasons, sf.citi recommends voting “yes” on Proposition J.

Prop L: Sales Tax for Transportation Projects

Sponsored By: Full Board of Supervisors

Notable Supporters: State Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymembers Matt Haney and Phil Ting, City College Trustee Alan Wong, BART Directors Janice Li and Bevan Dufty, San Francisco Democratic Party, Firefighters Local 798, San Francisco Transit Riders, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, WalkSF, San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, Transit Workers Union Local 250A, Teamsters Local 665, Bay Area Council, Livable City, TransForm, San Francisco Council of District Merchants, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

Notable Opposition: Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, San Francisco Board of Realtors

If passed, what will Prop L do? Proposition L would renew an existing San Francisco 0.5 percent sales tax for 30 years. The tax revenue would fund projects and programs outlined in the San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s (SFCTA) 2022 Transportation Expenditure Plan, including but not limited to paratransit services, congestion reduction projects, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and transit maintenance.

Talk to me about the $$$. Extending the sales tax is projected to generate approximately $100 million annually and increase to roughly $236 million annually by the fiscal year 2052 to 2053. The measure would also authorize the SFCTA to issue up to $1.9 billion in bonds that the City would repay with the sales tax revenue.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
The pandemic has had detrimental impacts on the financial stability of the City’s transportation systems. As riders slowly make their way back to public transit, San Francisco public transportation desperately needs this sales tax revenue to ensure its recovery and provide expanded service, connectivity, and much-needed infrastructure updates. The passage of this measure is dire for the longevity of public transportation in the City, especially after voters rejected a similar funding measure in the June 2022 election. We recommend voting “yes” on Measure L to invest in transportation now to meet future demands.

Note: This measure needs a two-thirds supermajority to pass.

Prop M: Tax on Keeping Residential Units Vacant

Sponsored By: Supervisor Dean Preston qualified this measure through the initiative process.

Notable Supporters: Supervisors Connie Chan, Gordon Mar, Shamann Walton, Hillary Ronen, and Rafael Mandelman, BART Directors Janice Li and Bevan Duffy, San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, San Francisco Democratic Party, United Educators of San Francisco, Affordable Housing Alliance, Tenants Together, San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, TODCO Group, Council of Community Housing Organizations, San Francisco Labor Council, Service Employees International Union 1021, Coalition on Homelessness

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Apartment Association, San Francisco Taxpayers Association, Grow SF

If passed, what will Prop M do? Proposition M will tax the owner of empty residential buildings with more than three units if they keep those units vacant for more than 182 days. The tax ranges from $2,500 to $5,000 in the first year—depending on the unit size— and increases to a maximum of $20,000 in later years if the same owner keeps the unit vacant for consecutive years.

Many residential buildings, however, received an exemption from the vacancy tax. The measure will not apply to single-family homes, duplexes, units intended for tourists and other travelers, nursing homes, single-room occupancies (SROs), and units owned by tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofits or government entities. Even with the many exemptions, the BLA report estimates that 4,500 empty units could make their way to market over the two years following the tax.

Talk to me about the $$$. Through current projections from City Controller Ben Rosenfield’s analysis, Proposition M could generate the City more than $37 million in annual revenue. Using the average number of residential vacancies in San Francisco from 2011 to 2020, the Controller estimates that the tax would result in a yearly revenue increase for the City of $20 million in 2024, $30 million in 2025, and $37 million in 2026. The revenue, however, could eventually taper off if the vacancy tax works as intended and reduces the number of residential vacancies that can face the tax.

The revenue from the vacancy tax would go into the newly established Housing Activation Fund. This fund would provide rent subsidies to individuals 60 or older and low-income households and allocate funds to acquire, rehabilitate, and operate vacant buildings for affordable housing.

sf.citi recommendation: No
This measure is a flawed attempt at policy to address the City’s housing crisis seriously. Even as the City faces a housing shortage and affordability crisis, adding a few thousand units to the market will not decrease rent and will not make a dent in the City’s RNHA goal of 82,000 units by 2031. Additionally, this fundamentally misguided policy is punitive to landlords and oversimplifies a complex issue. For these reasons, we recommend voting “no” on Measure M.

Prop N: Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Facility; Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority

Sponsored By: Mayor London Breed

Notable Supporters: San Francisco Democratic Party, Walk San Francisco, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, SF YIMBY, GrowSF

Notable Opposition: None

If passed, what will Prop N do? Proposition N would empower the City to operate the underground parking facility below the Music Concourse in Golden Gate Park by amending the Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998. The amendment would give the City authority to use public funds to operate, acquire, or subsidize parking in the garage. It would then fall on the Mayor and Board of Supervisors to determine how best to allocate those public funds.

The measure would also dissolve the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority and transfer the jurisdiction of the parking garage and other Concourse Authority property to the San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks.

Talk to me about the $$$. According to City Controller Ben Rosenfield’s analysis, Proposition N would have a minimal financial effect on the City as it would allow the City to refinance the garage’s existing debt and provide more flexibility in its management.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Making JFK Drive car-free does bring up questions of accessibility to Golden Gate Park, but that’s where the 800-space public garage below the Music Concourse comes into play. If this measure passes, it will cut through the arcane bureaucracy that governs the parking garage and provide more flexibility in its management. This change in who oversees the garage will make it easier for the City to create more spaces for disabled drivers, keep the garage open later, and offer free or discounted parking to low-income residents. Given the measure’s ability to expand access to Golden Gate Park and eliminate unnecessary government oversight, we recommend voting “yes” on Measure N.

Prop O: Additional Parcel Tax for City College

Sponsored By: City College Revenue Unity Coalition (Service Employees International Union 1021, American Federation of Teachers 2121, SF Building Trades, and Stationary Engineers) qualified this measure through the initiative process.

Notable Supporters: Assemblymembers Phil Ting and Matt Haney, Supervisors Shamann Walton, Hillary Ronen, and Gordon Mar, Public Defender Mano Raju, Board of Education Members Matt Alexander and Kevin Boggess, City College Trustees Alan Wong, Aliya Chisti, Thea Selby, John Rizzo, and Brigitte Davila, San Francisco Democratic Party, United Educators of San Francisco, San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club,

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Association of Realtors, San Francisco Taxpayer Association, Grow SF

If passed, what will Prop O do? Proposition O would create an additional parcel tax to help fund City College of San Francisco (CCSF). The parcel tax would assess an annual $150 per parcel for apartments, single-family homes, and non-residential sites smaller than 5,000 square feet. Then for larger, non-residential properties, the parcel tax rate would increase to $1,250 for parcels up to 24,999 square feet, $2,500 for those up to 100,000 square feet, and $4,000 for those over 100,000 square feet.

The tax does, however, exempt two types of properties. The first exemption includes properties owned and used by specific nonprofits, and the second exemption applies to a person over the age of 65 that owns the property and resides there.

The tax would go into effect July 1, 2023, and continue until June 30, 2043.

Talk to me about the $$$. This parcel tax would generate roughly $37 million for CCSF to support comprehensive educational programs such as basic skills classes, workforce development programs to keep children in school, and equity and social justice programs. The tax revenue could also increase over time as the per parcel rates adjust for inflation annually.

This measure also includes a set of safeguards. The first safeguard creates an independent oversight committee to ensure the tax revenue supports its intended purposes. The second requires the City Controller to perform audits for the first five years of the tax and periodically after. Then it allows the Mayor or Board of Supervisors to suspend CCSF from receiving the parcel tax revenue if CCSF does not adhere to the Controller’s audit recommendations.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Since the pandemic, CCSF has dealt with a tenuous financial situation that caused the college to lay people off and cut classes. CCSF faces a critical period moving forward and desperately needs this funding to continue offering its programs and services. The tuition-free CCSF provides the largest selection of workforce development opportunities in the City, making it vital that we support the institution's long-term viability. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition O.