ballot analysis
NOVEMBER 2007
A Comprehensive Guide to San Francisco's Ballot Measures
Released
Oct. 1, 2007
Contact
Egon Terplan, Economic Development and Governance Policy Director
781-8726 x131, eterplan@spur.org
SPUR's Ballot Analysis
Eleven City measures appear on the San Francisco ballot on Nov. 6, 2007. As we do each election, SPUR has thoroughly analyzed each of them. This year we've also decided to analyze six key state measures. For each measure, our Ballot Analysis Committee invited representatives of both sides of the issues, debated the merits and provided recommendations to the full Board of Directors. The Board then considered each measure. It takes a 60 percent vote of the Board to make a recommendation.
A well-meaning proposition isn't enough to earn an endorsement - it needs to propose a viable fix to a real problem. Ill-considered and politically motivated measures always end up on the ballot, but they don't have to become law.
For each of these eleven measures we asked: is it necessary and appropriate to be on the ballot? Is it practical, and if enacted, will it achieve the result it proposes? And most importantly, we ask if it is a worthy goal, one that will make San Francisco a better place to live for everyone.
Proposition A
"Transit Reform, Parking Regulation and Emissions Reductions"
MUNI REFORM
Reverses Muni's downward spiral by increasing revenues, fixing work rules, improving governance and mandating climate-change plan.
This amendment to the San Francisco City Charter, officially called the Emissions Reduction and Transit Reform Act, is intended to strengthen Proposition E from 1999, creating greater independence and more streamlined operations for our city's transit agency and providing more funding. It also implements some reforms designed to improve labor management that were left out of Proposition E in 1999. It includes, for the first time in San Francisco's history, performance standards related to global warming emissions, calling for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels. It was put on the ballot with the signatures of seven members of the Board of Supervisors.
Background
The Municipal Transportation Agency was created in 1999 with the passage of Proposition E. That measure consolidated Muni and the Department of Parking and Traffic into a single agency with a board of directors and procedures that were somewhat more independent from interference by the mayor and the Board of Supervisors. It created a stable funding source by creating a set contribution from the General Fund to the Municipal Railway, and set performance standards that the agency was required to meet. SPUR was closely involved in the drafting of Proposition E, and advocated its passage.
Eight years later, we can now review the success of the Municipal Transportation Agency in meeting the goals of Proposition E. Some things have worked; others have not. Combining the DPT and Muni into a single agency has for the most part streamlined transit and transportation planning. The same Board of Directors that is responsible for Muni operations is also responsible for the traffic engineers who are in charge of the streets. However, the Board of Supervisors still has final approval authority over all traffic changes. The MTA has benefited from a reliable funding source, no longer having to lobby every year for its budget, but the amount of reliable funding is insufficient to meet the promised level of service. Finally, the service standards in the city charter have not been met. Where on-time performance is supposed to be 85 percent by now (meaning 85 percent of the buses are no worse than one minute ahead or four minutes behind schedule), actual performance is a meager 70 percent, and not improving. The poor performance of Muni is reflected in declining ridership: It dropped 3 percent last year while nationally, on average, transit ridership increased by 2 percent.
Analysis
SPUR has exhaustively analyzed Muni in the last several years. Our policy papers, "Preventing Muni's Downward Spiral" and "Muni's Billion Dollar Problem," have emphasized two imperatives: speeding up the vehicles and providing more funding. Each of the papers referred to problems in labor management that hinder good service. Prop. A addresses many of the suggestions in SPUR's recent analyses. Key aspects of Prop. A include the following:
Increases autonomy for the MTA. Speeding up the buses is critical because faster service translates to more service at less cost. (For sake of argument, reducing a run's duration from 60 minutes to 45 minutes means that in three hours a single bus and driver can accomplish four runs instead of three.) Increasing Muni's average speed from its current abysmal rate of 8 miles per hour to just 10 miles per hour means that systemwide service could increase by 20 percent for a relatively low additional cost. This charter amendment would facilitate this goal by
giving the MTA exclusive control over "all
official traffic control devices, signs, roadway features and pavement markings that control the flow of traffic." Currently, many of these powers rest with the Board of Supervisors, whose members can be more concerned with the interests of a few constituents than the efficient operation of our citywide transit system.
Increases funding. This charter amendment would also provide more funding by increasing the percentage of the existing parking tax revenues that go to the MTA from 40 percent to 80 percent and by permitting the MTA to keep all revenues generated by off-street parking fees (except those revenues generated by facilities owned and operated by the Recreation and Park Department and the Port of San Francisco). It also specifies that these funds must be used for transit. These measures amount to a $26 million funding increase for Muni, critical because Muni's structural deficit is huge: from $30 million to $100 million per year, according to SPUR. The deficit has starved Muni of operators and managers. Of 21 similar transit properties, Muni's rail and bus operations have the 19th- and 21st-lowest ratio of supervisors to operators. Where the 21 agency average number of schedulers per division is 1.4, Muni gets by with 0.5. The performance standards in 1999's Proposition E, it turns out, represented an unfunded mandate.
Initiates labor reform. More money and faster buses will help, but without improving the agency's ability to deploy and manage its workforce those improvements are insufficient. The charter amendment does several things to change labor relations. It increases the number of "at will" employees who can be hired and fired at the will of the manager from 1.5 percent (about 75 today) to about 3 percent. It converts the formula that sets the operators and platform employees' salaries from a wage ceiling to a wage floor. According to MTA Executive Director Nathaniel Ford, this enables the agency in bargaining with the union to offer a higher base pay in exchange for changes in work rules that will reduce bonus payments and improve the agency's ability to discipline poorly performing operators. Current base pay is about $26 per hour. All Muni labor unions support the amendment, with the exception of SEIU Local No. 200, which represents middle managers and supervisors, and which takes no position.
Mandates climate-change plan. The charter amendment represents the City's first attempt to hold an agency accountable for its role in reducing the city's contribution to global warming. According to the Department of the Environment's Climate Action Plan, the transportation sector causes 51 percent of our city's greenhouse gas emissions. This charter amendment requires the MTA to issue a report every two years detailing how its policies are progressing toward reducing our emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2012.
Establishes parking maximums. The amendment includes a controversial provision that requires nine votes of the Board of Supervisors to increase the amount of parking required or permitted in San Francisco above the amounts specified by current law. This was added in response to the qualification for the ballot of the so-called "Parking for Neighborhoods" initiative that would dramatically increase off-street parking in the city's downtown. Prop. A's intent is to prevent the traffic congestion that would result from increased off-street parking in the city's transit-rich and already congested downtown. The provision does not decrease parking amounts, but merely sets a high threshold to gain approval for increasing parking amounts.
Several other reforms proposed by this amendment are worth mentioning. The MTA will get exclusive authority over some contracting and revenue bonds. This would allow the MTA to sell fast passes and youth passes at any outlet of its choosing, not just City-approved vendors. Its budget deadline is moved from March 1 to May 1, correcting a mistake in 1999's Proposition E that forced the agency to create a budget without sufficient information. The agency would be required to draft a two-year budget every year to give policy-makers a longer-term picture of the agency's fiscal outlook. The number of votes on the Board of Supervisors required to reject the agency's budget is reduced from eight to seven. It preserves the ability of the Board of Supervisors to merge the Taxi Commission into the MTA at some point, and gives the MTA more authority over rules governing taxicabs should the Board of Supervisors ever take that action. Should state law ever allow a non-elected body to set rates and rules governing on-street parking, the MTA would have that exclusive authority as well. This would allow for more rational pricing of on-street parking relative to off-street parking, to reduce traffic caused by circling for parking. It would consolidate the parking authority under the executive director of the MTA.
Pros
Those who support this measure claim:
• This gives the MTA more independence from interference by the Board of Supervisors that will cut waste and improve efficiency, leveraging better results from existing funding.
• Muni's poor reliability and service failures hinder the kind of dense, transit-oriented development that is necessary for the economic success of San Francisco and the protection of the planet from sprawl-induced pollution. We cannot wait for improvements.
• Its labor reforms will permit stronger management and improve labor productivity through changes in work rules. The potential for higher base pay will reward the majority of operators with strong work habits while permitting easier discipline of the more poorly-performing workers. Even an increase in base pay of 10 percent will keep operator salaries near or below the city's median wage, which is perfectly appropriate.
• The voters want to know what it will take to reduce our contribution to global warming and this amendment will accomplish that with regard to transportation that causes the largest contribution to global warming.
• This measure permits the construction of more parking should it be desirable and financially feasible because it eases the MTA's ability to issue revenue bonds based on projected parking revenues.
• Including the provision limiting parking increases is appropriate because the biggest contributor to traffic congestion is excess parking, and traffic congestion delays transit service.
Cons
Opponents of Proposition A claim:
• It does not do enough to reform labor practices and may increase costs without improving performance. Automatically giving the operators the average of the highest wages does not guarantee the removal of any of the work rules. Nothing prevents the City from proposing the removal of any of these work rules during negotiations today.
• This amendment takes the revenue from parking and applies it all to transit, preventing the money from being used on a case-by-case basis to fund a neighborhood parking garage.
• The provision to lock in maximum parking amounts is bad governance because it sets in stone the upper limits on parking. This measure was not part of prior drafts and was not discussed in public hearings.
• Budgets with set-asides reduce flexibility in the annual budgeting process.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "Yes" vote on Prop. A. This measure implements many of SPUR's recommendations for improving transit, and SPUR has been closely involved with its drafting since day one. Naturally, in the course of negotiations and outreach, we did not get everything we wanted. However, the strengthening of the MTA's independence, the included labor reforms, the infusion of cash and the mandate to address global warming all make this a very important reform of the Municipal Transportation Agency and a positive step toward the improvement of Muni service.
Proposition B
"Limiting Hold-Over Service on Charter-Created Boards and Commissions"
LIMITING COMMISSIONER HOLDOVERS
Forces commissioners to vacate their seats 60 days after their terms end, if not reappointed and approved, instead of allowing them to stay indefinitely.
Most members of City commissions and boards are appointed for a fixed number of years, typically four, and their terms expire when that time is up. Under current law, even when the member's term has expired, the member may continue to serve until he or she is reappointed or until a successor takes office. If neither of those events occurs, the member may continue to serve under the expired term indefinitely. Under Proposition B, an amendment to the San Francisco City Charter, members of City boards and commissions whose terms have expired would lose their seats 60 days after the expiration of their term, unless they were reappointed.
Background
The City of San Francisco has more than 25 City boards and commissions. These include policy and decision-making boards such as the Fire Commission, the Building Inspection Commission and the Police Commission. There are also numerous advisory commissions and boards such as the Urban Forestry Council, the Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Backstreets Business Advisory Board.
Members of these boards and commissions are appointed by the mayor, the Board of Supervisors and other elected officials. The Board of Supervisors must confirm some mayoral appointees. In addition to the mayor and the board, other elected officials, including the public defender, the city attorney, the district attorney, the treasurer and the assessor, can make a few appointments. Some commissioners serve at the pleasure of the appointing official and can be removed at any time. This ensures that the appointee will follow the policies of the elected official. Other appointments are for fixed terms, ensuring that the commissioner will be able to make independent judgments while being protected from political pressures.
Analysis
Prop. B would affect most boards and commissions that oversee City departments and would apply only to members whose terms have expired. In some cases, members of boards and commissions have continued to serve for several years after their terms expired, because the appointing officer did not reappoint the member or did not appoint another member for that seat.
Prop. B would not apply to citizen advisory commissioners (such as the Bicycle Advisory Committee), members of several arts and museum commissions, the Retirement Board, or the Health Service Board. The charter already prohibits members of the Police Commission from serving after a term expires, so those commissioners would not be affected by this measure. It also would not apply to new appointees or to those who resign.
Sometimes appointments languish because busy elected officials have other priorities. It can be time-consuming to find new, qualified people who are willing to serve. But retaining a commissioner in an expired term appointment can also have political motivations. If the term has expired, the supposedly independent commissioner is now effectively serving at the pleasure of the appointer. If the commissioner wishes to be reappointed, he or she had best vote as the appointer wishes.
In rare cases, Prop. B could give greater power to the Board of Supervisors. For example, when the supervisors must confirm a mayoral appointment and the mayor wishes to retain a commissioner whom the supervisors do not want, under current law the mayor could simply allow the commissioner to indefinitely serve after an expired term. Under Prop. B, the mayor would be forced to reappoint the commissioner within 60 days after the term expires and send the appointment to the supervisors to approve or reject, or find a new candidate. This could occur with important policy bodies such as the Board of Appeals, the Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors and the Planning, Port, and Recreation and Park commissions. It is possible that the Board of Supervisors could intentionally reject commissioners to prevent the commission from seating a quorum, which would prevent the commission from meeting at all. Alternatively, if the mayor chose to not appoint new commissioners, the same inability to meet could occur.
Pros
Supporters of this measure claim:
• Prop. B would hold appointing officials accountable for making timely appointments to boards and commissions that oversee and set policy for major City agencies and departments. Officials could no longer maintain the status quo by doing nothing.
• This measure would force new mayors to take seriously the process of appointing people once they take office.
• This would permit greater political independence of the commissions by preventing expired terms effectively becoming at-will appointments.
Cons
Opponents of this measure claim:
• This measure could result in boards and commissions throughout City government not having sufficient members for a quorum, thus preventing action on important issues. For example, if approved, this measure could lead to the removal of members of the Planning Commission whose terms have expired, thereby preventing the commission from meeting. This could slow the basic functioning of City government.
• In some cases, Prop. B could make it easier for supervisors to block mayoral appointments. The way it is today, a mayor could choose to leave a commissioner in his or her seat past the expiration of a term if the mayor suspected the Board of Supervisors would not approve that commissioner's reappointment.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "Yes" vote on Prop. B. This measure is a basic good-government fix of a process that has been abused in the past. While we do not like to see measures that could create unnecessary stalemates, the potential downside of preventing a quorum at a commission could still occur today when commissioners resign and appointing officials are slow to nominate replacements. Ultimately, we think that this measure will encourage the mayor and other officials to focus on reappointments and new appointments. Our City has turned over many aspects of governance to citizen commissioners and thus appointments to those commissions should be made with full recognition of their importance. This measure will help achieve that goal.
Proposition C
"Requiring Public Hearings on Proposed Measures"
ELECTION SUNSHINE
Brings sunshine and reform to a process where the mayor and board submit ballot measures, often on the final day, with no chance for public scrutiny or involvement.
This proposed amendment to the San Francisco City Charter would add a new procedure governing how the mayor or four or more members of the Board of Supervisors could submit an ordinance or policy declaration directly to the Department of Elections to be placed on the ballot.
Under the proposal, if four or more members of the board, or the mayor, want to place a measure on the ballot, they would submit the proposed initiative to the Board of Supervisors at least 45 days before the deadline for submitting such initiatives to the Department of Elections. The president of the board would then assign the measure to a committee of the board, and the committee would hold a public hearing on the measure.
If the committee did not hold a hearing on the measure prior to the deadline for the mayor or four supervisors to submit measures, the measure would still be placed on the ballot, but the Department of Elections would include a note in the voter information pamphlet explaining that the measure had not been the subject of a public hearing.
The people who submitted a measure could withdraw the proposed measure at any time prior to the Department of Elections' deadline for submission of such measures.
Background
The city charter allows either the mayor or four or more members of the Board of Supervisors to submit ordinances and policy statements onto the ballot. No public notice or hearings, and no notice to others supervisors, is required prior to submission to the Department of Elections. Such ordinances and policy statements may be submitted to the Department of Elections as late as early August for a November election. In recent years, San Francisco has seen an increase in the number of ordinances and policy statements submitted to the voters with little or no advance public review. In general, this trend appears to be part of the evolution of candidate campaigns.
Incumbents place measures on the ballot so they can campaign for a measure that "symbolizes" their values, motivates target voter groups or - most importantly - can receive donations to pay for "issue" advertising that includes the candidates' pictures. Most often, these measures are submitted to the Department of Elections very near the deadline for submission of such measures. This year, three measures were submitted on the final day, and a fourth one was submitted earlier that week.
In the elections of November 2000 and 2002, seven such last-minute measures were submitted for each election. After the November 2002 election, SPUR called for reform of these charter provisions to require at least one public hearing on measures submitted by four supervisors or the mayor. A proposed charter amendment was prepared and was the subject of some board hearings, but the board never voted to submit the amendment to the voters.
The election of November 2006 again represented why reform is necessary. Six measures were submitted at the last minute or without a prior public hearing. These measures dealt with important public-policy issues that ranged from sick-leave requirements to an increase in the parking tax. After the election, SPUR began working with a group of organizations to again push for ballot reform.
That group - consisting of SPUR, the League of Women Voters, the Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business Advocates, as well as other organizations, continued the public support for this reform. In June, seven members of the Board of Supervisors voted to place this charter amendment before the voters. Since then, organizations such as Common Cause California and San Francisco Tomorrow also have signed on to support it.
Analysis
The measure would result in the several changes to the way ordinances and policy declarations are submitted for the ballot. It would make the deadline by which four supervisors or the mayor must submit ordinances and policy statements 45 days earlier than it is now, and it would require a hearing on such ordinances and policy statements.
This proposed charter amendment includes a provision that allows a submitted measure to go on the ballot without having a hearing. This provision prevents supervisors from keeping a measure off the ballot simply by refusing to hold a public hearing. It also enables a proposition to go to the ballot in the case of a scheduling error for a hearing.
It is unclear if Prop. C would allow a submitted measure to be amended within the 45-day period between the time it is introduced and the Department of Elections deadline. The City Attorney's Office and the supervisors who have supported the proposition are working to clarify this issue. Allowing for amendment within the 45-day window would make it possible to fix drafting errors or write slight modifications in response to public input. It would not allow the mayor or supervisors who submitted a measure to completely replace the wording or subject of a measure, a practice common in state Legislature bills that is known as "gut and amend." It also would not allow for the addition of a totally different topic within the same ballot measure (as can occur in a charter amendment).
Pros
Supporters of this measure claim:
• The new requirements would bring needed "sunshine" - that is, open access for the public - to the ballot process, through 45-day advance public notice and a public hearing.
• This reform would impose a needed discipline on the mayor and the Board of Supervisors to seriously consider the measures they would like to go before the voters, as measures will receive much greater scrutiny than under the current rules.
• By changing the deadline for introduction to five months before the election, this measure reduces the incentive to use the ballot box as a proxy for a specific political fight.
• "Sunshine" could lead to fewer measures being submitted to the voters - through public and political pressure to withdraw ill-conceived or poorly-drafted measures, through encouraging the Board of Supervisors to simply adopt a law themselves instead of pursuing a proposition, or through increasing the effort necessary to place a measure before the voters. It would also provide an opportunity to correct drafting errors in otherwise laudable measures.
• This measure only affects ordinances and policy statements that appear on the ballot (It has no impact on signature campaigns or charter amendments). Ordinances and policy declarations are legislative actions that the board can pass without a vote of the people. We elect our politicians to deliberate on and pass laws, not to pass those responsibilities on to the voters.
• The measure reduces the ability of an incumbent politician to use a ballot measure as a soft-money vehicle for a re-election campaign.
Cons
Opponents of this measure claim:
• This measure would reduce the timeliness of last-minute ballot measures and the ability of City elected officials to put issues directly before the voters when the legislature fails to act. For example, this year's ballot includes an ordinance to fund a Small Business Assistance Center. This measure is priority of the mayor that did not receive sufficient support in the legislative process. The current charter specifically allows the voters to speak on issues when the legislative or executive branch is an obstacle.
• If measures cannot be amended after submission to the Department of Election and a the required public hearing is never held, this charter amendment would do little more than change the current ballot deadline to an earlier date.
• This measure would result in a greater number of proposed ballot measures that are used as political tools during the budget process, even if they are withdrawn before going onto the ballot.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "Yes" vote on Proposition C. This measure has been a core SPUR good-government priority for several years and we led the campaign to push to bring this measure onto the ballot. Public input and sunshine of ballot measures is necessary and will result in better-drafted - and potentially fewer - measures reaching the ballot. SPUR's goal in proposing this reform was always to improve the quality of public policy and we believe that Prop. C will achieve that goal.
Proposition D
"Renewing Library Preservation Fund"
LIBRARY BUDGET SET-ASIDE
Renews current library budget set-aside for another 15 years and allows the library to issue revenue bonds backed by its budget in order to finish renovating and building the remaining branch libraries.
This proposition is a an amendment to the San Francisco City Charter to renew the current Library Preservation Fund for an additional 15 years. The Library Preservation Fund is a budget set-aside to fund library services. In a change from the current fund, this charter amendment would also allow the San Francisco Public Library to use its projected budget reserves to sell revenue bonds in order to finance the completion of the branch library program. This program involves the construction and renovation of public branch libraries.
Background
In 1994, San Francisco voters passed Proposition E, a charter amendment that created the Library Preservation Fund. This measure established a dedicated fund to be used exclusively by the library to provide library services and materials as well as operate library facilities. Proposition E established a 15-year mandate that requires the City to maintain funding for the San Francisco Public Library at a level no lower than what it spent during the 1992-93 fiscal year. It also required the City to keep open a main and 26 branch libraries for a specified minimum number of hours each week.
When the Library Preservation Fund was on the ballot in 1994, SPUR did not support the measure, citing concerns with budget set-asides. Since then, SPUR has often supported - and sometimes has proposed - additional set-asides for important social goals such as public transit.
In 2000, San Francisco voters approved a
$106 million library bond and the San Francisco Public Library began the largest building campaign in its history. The bond called for
19 branches to be renovated, four leased facilities to be replaced with new City-owned buildings and a new branch library to be built in Mission Bay. The new library opened at Mission Bay July 8, 2006. Other new and renovated libraries include the Excelsior, West Portal, Sunset and Marina branch libraries, as well as the Glen Park branch set to open Oct. 13. Four branches are under construction and four other branches
will soon be under construction. An additional eight branches are in various stages of design.
Analysis
Prop. D would continue the dedicated funding the library has been receiving since 1994. If approved, Prop. D would replace the existing library fund and take effect in the fiscal year of 2008-2009 to continue for 15 years.
The Library Fund is a budget set aside for library services. While most city departments receive their funding through the regular budget process, a budget set-aside provides a formula to calculate the amount of funds that are required - at a minimum - to be appropriated to a particular department.
In the case of the library there are two sources of funds. First, the library receives a share of the city's local property taxes. The amount that goes to the library from the property tax levy is calculated based on $0.025 for each $100 assessed property valuation.
Second, the library receives funds from the discretionary portion of the City's General Fund. The amount that goes to the library is based on the Controller's Office's estimate of total discretionary funds but not less than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2006-2007 which amounted to $42 million.
Because of these two sources of funding, the library set-aside is "revenue driven." That is, the amount of money from property taxes depends on the total tax revenue collected by the City, which in turn is based on the strength of property values and the frequency of property resale and reassessments. The library set aside also maintains a baseline of funding. However, the funding towards the library could go below the baseline amount under some circumstances if total discretionary revenues to the City were to decrease.
In general, the purpose of Prop. D is to
provide sufficient revenue to operate 27 branches and the Main Library and to provide operating hours and services equivalent to what was provided in fiscal year 2006-2007.
Among the City services with set-asides, the library system is among the most widely used services. In 2006, there were more than 4 million visitors to the San Francisco library system. In addition to providing traditional access to books and materials, the City's libraries also serve as community centers offering a broad selection of services including teen and early literacy programs, Internet and wireless access, online reference and databases, as well as public instruction.
This charter amendment requires the library to meet certain outcomes - which are the same as for the existing Library Fund. The library must remain open a minimum of 1,211 service hours per week systemwide (a 53 percent increase from the level of 1994 hours when the original Library Preservation Fund was passed) and is required to operate a Main Library and 27 branch libraries, which includes the addition of the new Mission Bay branch. Funding for library collections and services must also be maintained.
The 1994 Library Preservation Fund has helped expand hours, increase books and materials, improve the quality of technology, and hire certified librarians in every branch. Since its passage, the Preservation Fund helped expand the library's service hours from a level of 801 hours per week in 1992 to 1,211 hours per week in 2007. The Library Preservation Fund has helped increase the book and materials budget by 400 percent, has added more than 500 computers, and has provided registered librarians in every branch. Each branch library is open on Saturday, staggered branch hours provide systemwide open hours four nights per week, and 10 libraries now offer Sunday hours.
A new provision would allow the library, with the agreement of the mayor and the Board of Supervisors, to issue revenue bonds or other debt obligations to be used for real-property improvements. Those debts would be repaid from the Library Preservation Fund.
The fund also incorporates several levels of scrutiny, including a community input process. This would be established no later than March 1, 2013, based on supervisorial districts. The meetings will assist the Library Commission in developing criteria for service hours. This process would be repeated at least once every five years. At the conclusion of the process, the Library Commission may modify the service hours for the next interval.
Pros
Those who support this measure claim:
• A set-aside for library services protects the library from the instability and politics in the City's annual budget process. In the past, politicians routinely failed to adequately fund the library, leading to staff cuts, the reduction of its materials budgets and reduced service hours, particularly during the lean budget years of the early 1990s.
• Since its passage in 1994, the Library Preservation Fund has resulted in expanded library services, new technology and increased staff.
• This measure also gives the City the ability to secure funds (through revenue bonds) for capital improvements needed to complete the Branch Library Improvement Program without going to voters again for general-obligation bond funding. This new method of funding capital improvements, which is incorporated into the City's 10-year Capital Plan, is entirely appropriate for a department that already has the assurance of a funding stream and allows for capital upgrades without reducing funding for other capital needs.
• This measure includes the best elements of budget set-asides - it is time-limited (15 years), tied to revenues (so it goes up and down with the overall economy and budget), and includes outcome measurements.
Cons
Those who oppose this measure claim:
• The existing Library Preservation Fund is in place until 2009, thus making it not necessary to put on the ballot two years ahead of time.
• Despite a major increase in funds to the library system, there has been a minimal increase in library hours after the initial increase immediately after the library fund was approved in 1994.
• The Library Preservation Fund does not allow for sufficient accountability for how the budget set-aside is spent or which outcomes the library needs to achieve.
• There are serious questions about budget set-asides, of which the Library Preservation Fund is only one.
> Set-asides lock in spending for special purposes, but elected officials should have the authority to determine priorities. The budget already contains a high proportion of restricted funds, leaving elected officials with only a small amount of discretionary funds to meet the city's needs.
> Set-asides such as the Library Preservation Fund reduce the possibilities of proper oversight by the Board of Supervisors and the mayor on such issues as whether the amount provided to the library is actually providing the services that San Franciscans want and need.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "Yes" vote on Proposition D. Despite our reservations about budget set-asides, this measure is a renewal of an existing set-aside for a crucial city service that has demonstrated measurable, positive results. This measure also includes a new provision that allows the library to sell revenue bonds to fund capital improvements. For a department that has a healthy and relatively certain budget, this is an appropriate means of meeting capital requirements. In the future, SPUR expects to adopt a set of policies that help us in our evaluation of set-asides. Developing a set of principles will not only help SPUR in our analysis but may also help potential drafters of new set-aside measures.
Proposition E
"Requiring Mayor to Appear Monthly at a Board of Supervisors Meeting"
QUESTION TIME
Changes city charter to force all mayors to be accountable to the Board of Supervisors for policy discussions without specifying rules for this "question time."
This measure changes the San Francisco City Charter to add a new requirement for the mayor to appear monthly at the Board of Supervisors' regular meetings to engage in "policy discussions." It also gives the Board of Supervisors, in consultation with the mayor, the power to set the rules and guidelines affecting the appearance before the board.
Background
The idea for bringing the mayor to the Board of Supervisors to engage in policy discussions is modeled after "Question Time" in the British Parliament, which is regularly shown on the cable television channel C-SPAN. Question Time in the British Parliament is an opportunity for the "opposition party" to ask questions of majority party. It should be noted that the British prime minister is a member of the House of Commons and that he or she gets questions ahead of time and prepares responses in advance.
In July 2006, a similar measure was put on the ballot by four supervisors as a non-binding policy statement. It passed with 56 percent of the vote in November 2006. That year there had been an attempt to put "Question Time" on the ballot as a charter amendment but the proponents did not receive the six required votes from other board members.
Since the time voters approved the policy statement, the mayor has not attended any Board of Supervisors meeting to engage in policy debates. Instead, the mayor chose to comply with the "spirit" of the non-binding policy statement by holding monthly "town hall" meetings with residents throughout the city. All supervisors were invited to attend the meetings in their districts, and some have participated.
This year, six supervisors voted to place this charter amendment onto the ballot.
Analysis
This charter amendment requires the mayor's presence at a monthly Board of Supervisors meeting to engage in formal policy discussions in an open and public setting.
This amendment makes two specific changes to the charter. One feature is to add to the 19 existing responsibilities and powers of the mayor, "Appearance, in person, at one regularly-scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors each month to engage in formal policy discussions with members of the board." The other calls upon the board to develop the framework for the exchange.
For the past 75 years, the mayor of San Francisco has had the authority to attend the meetings of the Board of Supervisors and sit in on debate. Under the current list of powers, the mayor today can "speak and be heard with respect to any matter at any meeting of the Board of Supervisors or any of its committees." Therefore, under current powers, the mayor can attend (and some mayors have attended) any meeting of the Board of Supervisors. This measure shifts the power away from the mayor to decide whether to appear before the board and makes it a responsibility of the mayor to actually come to the board meeting.
There may be unintended consequences of requiring the executive branch to appear before the legislative branch under as-yet-unspecified rules and guidelines that have been mandated by the legislative branch. For example, what would occur if the mayor were committed to attend a particular board meeting but then were faced with an emergency somewhere in the city? Since the Board of Supervisors could not bring charges of impeachment against the mayor for violating the charter in this regard, it sets up a possible conflict between the two branches without a means for resolution.
Proponents say that in the other 57 California counties, the county executive regularly appears at county Board of Supervisors meetings, and that the general workings of city government can benefit from more open communication among its officials. However, no other county in California, or any other governmental system with an independently elected executive and legislature, mandates such an exchange.
Pros
Those who support this measure claim:
• This measure could contribute to policy development in San Francisco, encouraging the mayor to formally give input on any pending initiative as it goes through the legislative process, and would allow the public to hear the various viewpoints among our City representatives on major policy issues.
• This measure gives us the opportunity to be unique among North American cities in requiring the executive branch to appear before (and under the control of) the legislative branch.
• This measure would provide added entertainment for those interested in seeing more face-to-face exchanges among competing viewpoints.
• This would also allow the mayor to publicly give his or her input early and not wait until the end of the legislative cycle to express an opinion.
Cons
Those who oppose this measure claim:
• This measure is a waste of time, energy and resources. The mayor can and does meet with most of
the supervisors. It makes more sense to have policy dialogue on an ad-hoc basis, not as a requirement.
• Requiring the mayor's appearance at the Board of Supervisors is a process change with no improvement to the delivery of government service targeting a specific outcome. Most residents want government to improve its performance, not its process.
• The primary beneficiaries of this measure are supervisors who have an opportunity to garner additional press coverage. Under district elections, there are fewer opportunities for citywide exposure. Charter reform should not be used to enhance the publicity of a select group of elected officials.
• This measure is largely a product of the antagonistic relationship that several members of the Board of Supervisors have with the current mayor - all of whom will eventually be termed out office. Charter reform should respond to the need structural changes, not in response to the personalities of today.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "No" vote on Proposition E. Although SPUR believes that more dialogue among the City's leaders and with the public at large is something that is healthy and should be encouraged, mandating this discussion to occur would be counterproductive. The City's system of government makes the mayor accountable directly to the people of San Francisco, not to the Board of Supervisors. While it may sound like a good idea to have Question Time, fundamentally changing this relationship is unnecessary and unwarranted.
Proposition F
"Amending Retirement Benefits for Police Dept. Employees
who were Airport Police Officers"
AIRPORT POLICE RETIREMENT
Reverses cost-neutral provision of charter by partially subsidizing transfer from state to City retirement plan for a small group of airport police.
This proposed amendment to the San Francisco City Charter would authorize the Board of Supervisors to amend the contract between the City and the California Public Employees' Retirement System to allow individual employees who were formerly airport police officers to transfer from coverage under CALPERS to coverage under the San Francisco Employment Retirement System and to have their service
and retirement contributions credited appropriately. The charter currently requires that all contracts and contract amendments be cost-neutral to the City. This proposed amendment eliminates the cost-neutral requirement and allows for a City subsidy for
the improved pension benefits without employees trading anything in exchange, as has been
done in prior practice.
Background
The question of employees transferring
from the state CALPERS retirement system
to the City SFERS retirement system has been
an issue for several decades. Up until this measure, each time the discussion resulted
in a reaffirmation that there should be no
added cost to taxpayers of bringing employees into the city's retirement plan.
In 1983 the voters agreed to enhanced
benefits for a defined group of "Miscellaneous Safety" employees if and only if the enhancement resulted in "no increased cost to the City." These miscellaneous safety employees included probation officers, airport police officers, district attorneys, public defender investigators, medical examiner investigators, juvenile court counselors, institutional police, fire-safety inspectors and fire-protection engineers.
Under the "no increased cost" compact, employee groups could trade lower current pay for higher retirement benefits. Of the nine job categories approved as miscellaneous safety employees in 1983, only five have received enhanced benefits. The remaining four have been unable to meet "no increased cost" requirement.
In 1990, San Francisco voters rejected a charter amendment that proposed to remove the airport police from the miscellaneous safety employees group created in 1983. This change would have resulted in the airport police being considered part of the City's police force and would have improved the airport police retirement formula to 2 percent of working pay for each year of service with a retirement age of 50, from 2 percent at 55.
In 1997, airport police officers were transferred to the San Francisco Police Department. All former airport police then began paying into SFERS for all future retirement benefits. However, their past retirement accounts for service prior to Dec. 27, 1997 remained with the CALPERS.
In 2003, voters approved a charter amendment (Prop. B) that allows the Board of Supervisors to agree to changes to retirement benefits for miscellaneous safety employees that involve an increased cost, so long as it is borne by the employees. This measure replaced the prior language that mandated "no net increase in cost" with "contracts and contract amendments shall be cost-neutral and employee bargaining units shall be permitted to trade salary or other employee benefits to achieve cost neutrality." Under Prop. B, the new "cost neutral" language meant that in a labor contract, any increases in retirement benefits would have to be offset by decreases in current pay or other changes. Seemingly, voters reaffirmed their 1983 ballot position to enhance benefits for the miscellaneous safety employees group if and only if the enhancement was cost-neutral to the City.
Analysis
Currently, pensions for San Francisco police are calculated as 3 percent of the employee's highest one-year averaged monthly compensation. The employee is eligible for this pension at age 55 and after five years of service. The state retirement is calculated as 2 percent of salary for each year of service, but can be taken starting at age 50.
Under today's system, some members of the SFPD who had previously served as airport police prior to the merger have retirement benefits in two separate systems calculated at different rates. This proposition would transfer all airport police currently covered under CALPERS to the city system, whereby their entire retirement would become 3 percent at 55.
There are approximately 60 current and former airport police officers who would be affected by this charter amendment because a portion of their retirement is under the CALPERS system and could be switched over to the City retirement system.
Under the proposed Prop. F, the cost to the City for upgrading the retirement benefits is capped at $670,000 total. The majority of these funds will come from the airport and the remainder from the City's General Fund. The employee who elects to transfer from CALPERS to SFERS will pay any additional cost. It is estimated that the one-time cost for each employee will be between $8,000 and $11,000, depending on years of service.
The fact that the City is paying any portion of the total cost without that cost being offset by some other savings is what violates the existing cost-neutrality language in the charter.
Pros
Those who support this measure claim:
• This measure is an inexpensive change that supports and rewards the people who guard our safety.
• When the airport police merged with the SFPD, it created a dual system where police working side by side have different retirement packages. This measure changes that and creates retirement parity for all San Francisco police officers who previously worked at the airport prior to it coming under the management of the SFPD.
• This measure treats equally the time worked by uniformed employees of the airport and the Police Department.
Cons
Those who oppose this measure claim:
• This measure abandons for the first time the "no cost" compact that was established in 1983 and reaffirmed by the voters in 1990 and 2003. It reverses two decades of practice whereby employee groups could upgrade pensions only in exchange for changes to other benefits (such as current salary) in order for the change to remain cost-neutral for the City.
• It treats one group of employees better than eight other miscellaneous public-safety groups by helping subsidize the better pension plan for the airport police with public money. Other groups who have yet to receive this benefit and could demand it as a result of this precedent include medical examiners, public defender investigators, fire safety inspectors, and fire protection engineers.
• The measure may be technically inoperative because the measure allows individuals to transfer benefits, which may violate state law requiring the entire group be transferred.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "No" vote on Proposition F. We support the concept of groups of employees being able to improve their retirement benefits and treating the time worked by various peace officer groups as being comparable for retirement purposes. We supported the improvement in the safety retirement plan (3 percent at age 55). However, the original compact with the nine public safety groups regarding no City cost has been consistently applied and upheld and should not be waived for one group. This concept was reaffirmed by Prop. B in 2003 (which SPUR also supported). This proposed charter amendment reverses those past principles and would be a bad precedent for the City.
Proposition G
"Establishing Golden Gate Park Stables Matching Fund"
STABLES FUND
Appropriates money outside of budget process to subsidize stables shuttered since 2001.
This proposition is an ordinance that would establish a fund for donations to restore the stables in Golden Gate Park and provide for a City match of $1 for every $3 in private money donated to the fund. The City portion of the fund is up to $750,000, appropriated from the General Fund.
Background
Horseback riding has been a part of Golden Gate Park for more than 130 years and the riding stables are historically significant structures built by the Works Progress Administration during the New Deal era.
In 2001, the stables closed their doors and ceased operations indefinitely. It is in need of substantial renovation before it can be used again. Previous attempts at operating the City-owned stables for profit were unsuccessful. In addition to a requirement to provide open and equal access, there the costs of operating a public stable in San Francisco were high. Prior operators had little capital or retained earnings to reinvest in upkeep and renovation.
Although the stable previously lost money, some believe that the stables could be operated at a profit if given proper funds for extensive renovations and if the new stables did not permit private citizens to board their horses there indefinitely (presumably at below-market rates).
The stables are a City-owned concession. Historically, their management was put out to bid for a private operator. The Recreation and Parks Department is preparing a request for proposals for a stable operator and manager. In order to better educate itself regarding the needs of a public stables, in late 2001 the Board of Supervisors, led by Supervisor Tony Hall, called on local equestrian experts to form a working group to develop an advisory plan to aid the City's development of an RFP.
On May 5, 2003, this plan was revealed. The working group recognized the need for expansion of the stalls, and expansion and covering of the center riding arena. The group encountered delays, including the need for a historical review of the site, but ultimately the group successfully directed the development of initial site plans. Due to costs, the proposals cited that all structures aside from the current WPA stalls would be pre-fabricated.
Analysis
The San Francisco Parks Trust has already raised $1.4 million from private sources for the renovation of the stables. Some of this money is being used to develop the environmental-impact report required before any work can be done on the stables.
The proposed stables fund would receive a city match of $1 for each $3 of new private contributions, up to a maximum of $750,000 in City money. The stables would not receive a city match for the $1.4 million already raised. The Parks Trust would oversee this new fund and establish a separate nonprofit agency to oversee the future of the stables.
It is estimated that well more than $3.5 million is required to restore the stables. The restoration will include covering and lighting the arena, increasing the size of the stalls, building more stalls, building housing for the operator to give a 24-hour presence for safeguarding the horses and the relocation of the hay barn, as well as shavings storage and a manure-processing area.
The San Francisco Parks Trust is working on a business plan for maintaining the stables over time once they are reopened. Some changes to past practice are proposed. In the past, private horse owners could board their horses there indefinitely. That would not be allowed under the new plan. Further, part of the plan for renovation of the stables involves bringing in at-risk youths, providing scholarships so that children and youths from throughout the city could benefit from having horses to ride and care for.
Pros
Those who support this measure claim:
• This ordinance would provide City matching funds to encourage private donations. Using public funds to leverage private funds is good policy as it shares the burden for a public good.
• San Francisco would be unique among U.S. cities in maintaining stables within city limits for public use.
• This measure is necessary as it would overcome six years of stalemate on moving to renovate and reopen the stables.
Cons
Those who oppose this measure claim:
• The maximum of $750,000 in City money that this measure would generate (with the $2.25 million in private donations) is far less than enough to complete the renovation. There is no assurance that additional needed funds would be forthcoming from either the City or private sources.
• Without a developed business plan, it is not clear how the stables could be maintained. There is no way of knowing whether the enterprise would be self-sustaining or would require continuing City funds for operations.
• The City has already adopted its 2007-2008 budget, and funds for the stables were not included. Funds for the stables should be appropriated through the budgeting process, not through the ballot box.
• The City has a planning process for prioritizing capital expenditures. The costs of renovating the stables should be part of that planning process, not a special case.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "No" vote on Proposition G. While using tax funds to leverage private donations is often a good plan, horseback riding in Golden Gate Park is not the most pressing public priority for giving a City subsidy. The appropriation of City funds should be made through the budget process, not through the ballot. During the budget process, priorities such as riding stables can be weighed against affordable housing, homeless services and other more urgent concerns. Further, the capital expenditures needed to renovate the stables should go through the regular process of prioritizing capital investments. Lastly, the City subsidy and private match (totaling approximately $3 million) is not even sufficient to reopen the stables. Ultimately, this is a misuse of the ballot box and this measure should not be on the ballot.
Proposition H
"Regulating Parking Spaces"
PARKING INITIATIVE
Reverses 35 years of transit-oriented growth with a sweeping measure that quintuples downtown commuter parking and impedes neighborhood planning.
This measure would revise numerous provisions of the Planning Code to allow developers, at their discretion, to provide as much or as little parking in new projects downtown as they choose, and to prevent the reduction of current parking requirements in certain neighborhoods outside the downtown area. The initiative ordinance was placed onto the ballot through the gathering of signatures. If passed, this measure has the potential to radically increase the amount of commuter parking in downtown San Francisco, and to disrupt Muni operations by increasing congestion in the downtown transit core, and by allowing curb cuts at Muni stops and along major transit corridors.
Background
HOW PARKING IS REGULATED IN SAN FRANCISCO. As in every other city, the City's Planning Code regulates how much parking is required and permitted in buildings. It allows project sponsors to do some things "as of right," meaning that no special judgment or discretion is needed to approve the project, while other things are allowed with a "conditional use permit," meaning that the City may impose special conditions on the project because it requires judgment or discretion to allow it. Typically, the Planning Code establishes a minimum amount of required parking for a given use and a given location; developers are usually allowed to build up to 150 percent of the minimum amount as their maximum, and with a conditional use permit they may be allowed to build even more.
Minimum parking requirements in San Francisco vary depending upon the neighborhood and the use. These requirements are spelled out in excruciating detail in the Planning Code, and are custom-tailored every time there is a new neighborhood plan. (Thus, this ordinance, which revises the code line by line, takes up nearly 60 pages.) Currently there are different requirements for the downtown area and for residential neighborhoods.
DOWNTOWN. For almost 30 years, San Francisco has been pioneering in its approach to parking in its downtown commercial district. Since 1978, parking for new office buildings has not been required and only a small amount has been allowed as of right. Parking greater than these amounts can be allowed by the Planning Commission in the Downtown but only after considering (1) whether the trips to be served by the parking instead could be served by existing and reasonably foreseeable transit, by car-pools, by more efficient use of existing on and off-street parking, or by other means; and (2) whether there would be detrimental effects created by the provision of increased parking, such as contributions to traffic congestion or conflict with or disruption of transit. The downtown has grown and prospered under this approach. Office buildings and the economy have flourished.
Last year, the mayor and the Board of Supervisors adopted a measure to better control the growth of residential parking downtown. The new zoning codes slightly decreased allowable parking in recognition that the extensive availability of transit and the growing success of car-sharing will attract many people to live downtown without personal automobiles. Among other effects of the new codes, the amount of parking allowed for residential uses was capped at three spaces for every four one-bedroom or studio units, and one space for every unit of two bedrooms or more.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. In neighborhoods outside the downtown area, the Planning Code generally requires a minimum of one parking space for each newly constructed dwelling unit. In recent years the City has engaged residents in some neighborhoods to develop area plans which the residents prefer, including plans that call for reduced parking requirements in order to provide more transit-friendly and affordable housing in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood. This initiative imposes the same parking requirements in all neighborhoods and takes away the ability of neighborhood plans to change parking requirements through the current process. For instance, it would prohibit the implementation of some aspects of the Market-Octavia neighborhood plan that the Planning Commission already has approved.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. Auto ownership in the City has risen and, as more vacant lots with surface parking have been developed, there has been a loss of off-street parking. The demand for parking is acute in some neighborhood commercial districts. The use of on-street parking by merchants and their employees, who feed the parking meters all day, often is a problem. To date the City has made little effort to manage parking in neighborhood commercial districts through traffic-demand management strategies that would price parking to allow for greater availability for short term on-street parking needs, although the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is developing procedures to improve neighborhood parking through their "On-street Parking Management and Pricing Study."
Analysis
This measure proposes a radical departure from the current approach to parking regulation in San Francisco. Its primary impacts would:
• Dramatically increase the amount of parking allowed as of right in all new development downtown.
• Set a floor for minimum parking requirements in the rest of the city outside of downtown, regardless of what future neighborhood planning efforts propose.
• Establish a new right for property owners to add at least one parking space for each unit regardless of whether it harms Muni operations or street trees.
• Place nearly 60 pages of established existing and amended Planning Code onto the ballot, thereby restricting the ability of the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors to make any changes to that code in the future without going back to the voters for approval.
• Shrink the Downtown Commercial District (C-3 zoning). This would prevent the expansion of the high-density downtown district to new areas like Mission Bay.
• Allow for some flexibility in the provision of off-site parking.
The following sections describe each of the key aspects of the measure.
1. THE INITIATIVE DRAMATICALLY INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF PARKING ALLOWED AS OF RIGHT IN ALL NEW DEVELOPMENTS DOWNTOWN.
Additional Office Parking Downtown. The measure proposes a radical departure from the current successful approach to parking regulation in downtown San Francisco, quintupling the amount of parking allowed. Currently, the Planning Code allows approximately parking to occupy no more than 7 percent of the building's gross floor area, equal to about one space for each 4,000 square feet of occupied space. The initiative would allow as-of-right one space for each 1,000 square feet of occupied building area, four times as much as the current Planning Code. An additional increment, bringing the total up to one space per 750 square feet, would be allowable by the Planning Commission under certain circumstances.
Additional Residential Parking Downtown. The initiative increases the amount of residential parking in the Downtown Commercial, or C-3, zoning districts. In the downtown area, the initiative allows three spaces as of right for every four dwelling units instead of the current one space for every four dwelling units. The initiative also allows, "by exception," an additional space for each four units for a total of one space per dwelling unit, instead of the current maximum of three spaces for every four dwelling units. The initiative also slightly increases the number of as-of-right spaces in Rincon Hill from two spaces for each four dwelling units to three spaces for each four dwelling units.
Parking for "Low Emission" Vehicles Exempt from Parking Limits. The initiative provides that parking for "low emission" vehicles shall not be counted toward the maximum quantities of off-street parking allowed as accessory. The initiative's definition of low-emission vehicle includes not just most hybrids and alternative-fuel vehicles, but many other types of vehicles as well. At least 208 models of cars and trucks are low-emissions vehicles under this standard.
2. THE INITIATIVE SETS A FLOOR FOR MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE REST OF THE CITY OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN, REGARDLESS OF WHAT FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING EFFORTS PROPOSE. The initiative prevents the reduction of parking requirements in individual neighborhoods by freezing the existing parking requirements in rest of the city outside of downtown, including the requirement of one parking space per dwelling unit, regardless of what the residents in that neighborhood want. Parking regulations, which should be custom-tailored to a neighborhood through an inclusive planning process, would be locked in at the ballot, amendable only by another vote of the city's electorate.
3. THE INITIATIVE ESTABLISHES A NEW RIGHT FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO PUT IN ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH UNIT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT HARMS MUNI OPERATIONS OR EXISTING STREET TREES. The initiative allows property owners to add garages without regard to "any potential effect on transit stops, bicycle or primary pedestrian street, or any existing street tree, provided that such conversion or modification is consistent with all applicable development standards for the district where the structure is located." Currently, the Planning Commission may deny a building permit if the construction would destroy an important tree or transit stop.
4. THE INITIATIVE PLACES NEARLY 60 PAGES OF EXISTING AND AMENDED PLANNING CODE ONTO THE BALLOT. The impact of this is to restrict the ability of the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors to make any changes to that code in the future without going back to the voters for approval. The initiative makes dozens of amendments, spread throughout dozens of sub-sections of the Planning Code. In the future, these amendments could be modified only by going back to the voters for approval.
5. THE INITIATIVE CONTRACTS THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. The initiative restricts the Downtown Commercial and Downtown Residential districts to the area bounded by Van Ness Avenue, 11th Street, Townsend Street and the Bay, thereby reversing the planned expansion of those transit-friendly designations to the neighborhoods around Market Street and Van Ness Avenue. In this sense, the measure surreptitiously undertakes a very significant ballot-box zoning, affecting the future of this city's urban core.
6. THE INITIATIVE PROVIDES MORE FLEXIBILITY IN PROVIDING PARKING OFF-SITE. In the only provision that reflects a good idea that supports SPUR's goal of sustainable urban development, this initiative makes it easier to locate a development's parking a reasonable walking distance away from the development and makes it easier to encourage shared parking uses. For example, workday users and users on nights and weekends could make use of the same parking facility. In neighborhood commercial districts only, the initiative permits a project sponsor - in lieu of providing a required parking space - to pay $15,000 per space to the Off-Street Parking Revenue Account to be used to help pay for new public parking facilities or to help pay for the City's traffic-signal management program, SFgo. This provision replaces current Code requirements that allow the Planning Commission to set payments in lieu of building a parking space at "an amount deemed sufficient to provide for the future construction of the required number of parking stalls." The $15,000 amount proposed by this initiative is far less than the actual cost of building a parking space, and may not be adjusted for inflation or changed for any reason without another vote of the people. For reference, the North Beach, completed several years ago before recent construction
cost escalation, cost more than $100,000 per parking space.
Pros
Those who support this measure claim:
• San Francisco needs more parking. For many people, transit, bicycling or walking are not reasonable alternatives, so automobile uses should be accommodated.
• In some instances, residents in buildings with less than one parking space per unit may own a car and park it on the street, thus making the parking situation in the immediate area slightly more difficult. By requiring developers to build a minimum amount of parking (or to choose to avoid such parking through a moderate fee), this measure could reduce circumstances in which new residents park their cars in existing street spaces.
• The current system can be construed as unfair to some property owners. In certain situations they can be prohibited from adding a parking space and driveway if it will negatively affect a transit stop, bicycle lane or street tree. Neighbors without these public amenities in front of their property are not so restricted.
• The measure may result in the payment of fees that can be used to help build public parking garages in neighborhood commercial districts.
• The measure would produce more off-street parking citywide at no direct cost to the City.
Cons
Those who oppose this measure claim:
• This measure would negate decades of sound planning and transportation policy for downtown San Francisco, as well as more recent policies that support reduced parking requirements in some transit-rich areas of the city, by allowing as much as six times more parking in new buildings.
• The measure restricts the ability of City officials - the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors - to manage the supply of downtown parking, thereby removing the ability of our city's leaders to manage congestion.
• The measure would pre-empt neighborhoods from determining their own parking needs, instead applying a "one size fits all" set of parking requirements to the rest of the city. In several of the recent examples of neighborhood planning (such as the Market and Octavia Better Neighborhoods Plan) neighbors have supported increased residential development with neighborhood-specific restrictions on the development of new parking. This measure would prevent neighborhoods from customizing parking requirements based on their transit accessibility, and community needs and desires.
• The measure would contradict the City's own Transit First policy by encouraging auto commuting to work, in violation with the city's General Plan, according to the city's Planning Department. The increases in parking permitted downtown could overwhelm the capacity of downtown streets to handle the traffic and further slow public transit operating on and near downtown streets. The resulting traffic would impede our ability to continue to build a dense, walkable downtown where the vast majority of commuters now arrive at work via transit.
• The increased car traffic generated by downtown development will also impose an increasing burden on the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown area, limiting the City's ability to make these neighborhoods more safe and livable.
• By expanding commuter parking in the downtown, this measure will increase automobile-generated greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, which will undermine San Francisco's goals of protecting and improving the local and global environment.
• Allowing new garages and curb cuts without restriction in any residential structure in a residential district with four or fewer units would mean the disruption of transit stops and transit shelters, as well as the removal of mature trees. This provision would undermine neighborhood character, degrade transit and the walkability of neighborhoods, and eliminate one - and often, two - publicly accessible on-street parking spaces.
• Exempting parking for "low emission" vehicles from the parking limits while defining such vehicles so broadly is a huge loophole that results in virtually no limits on the amount of commuter parking a developer can build and operate.
• Many people in San Francisco, comprising about 30 percent of the city's households, do not own cars and live a car-free lifestyle. By requiring a parking space in each new dwelling unit outside downtown, housing will be made less affordable to the many San Franciscans who live without a car.
• This measure is the worst example of ballot-box planning. The initiative prevents the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors from making any changes, however much needed, that violate the "intent" of the dozens of amendments made throughout dozens of sub-sections of the Planning Code unless they return to the voters to do so.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "No" vote on Proposition H. This measure would reverse 35 years of city planning policy in San Francisco, undermines the City's Transit First policy and runs counter to established SPUR policy. SPUR has long stood for a vision of San Francisco that promotes residential and job growth through reliance on transit. Our current downtown plan reaffirmed those principles and helped create a job center where more than 50 percent of workers take transit to their jobs. Forcing additional parking into new office and residential development will increase congestion and destroy the relatively successful downtown transportation system by making Muni slower, less reliable and costlier to operate.
The measure also contradicts SPUR's longstanding critique of ballot-box planning. By placing dozens of pages of Planning Code directly into the text of the measure, it locks these sections of code and prevents any changes to them by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. Neighborhood-planning process such as the one that has earned consensus support of the residents in the Market-Octavia neighborhood could not culminate with a simple vote at the Board of Supervisors, but would have to go to San Francisco voters for approval. The measure contains no sunset provision, which means that these provisions must stand indefinitely, even if circumstances change that would make amendments to the code desirable.
The measure also specifically reduces the discretion of the Planning Department and Planning Commission to make adjustments to parking requirements depending on neighborhood context or any other factor. In short, it invalidates neighborhood planning. There is a real need for better parking management in San Francisco's neighborhoods, but this measure does not address those key concerns. Simply adding more parking in new development without improving parking management and transit will exacerbate parking problems and traffic congestion. Lastly, this measure is divisive, as it tries to pit drivers against transit riders, and neighborhood against neighborhood. Instead, we need to find collaborative solutions to the important issue of parking management in a dense city. This measure fails to achieve that. Ultimately, this is a backward-looking measure that does not move the city forward into a more sustainable, more livable future.
Proposition I
"Establishing Office Small Business as a City Department and
Creating Small Business Assistance Center"
SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE CENTER
Funds the startup costs for a new center for small businesses to receive assistance with permits,
City mandates and business planning.
This measure would provide a one-time appropriation of $750,000 to fund the building and staffing of a Small Business Assistance Center with the purpose of providing assistance to businesses of fewer than 100 employees that operate in San Francisco. The funding would be allocated to: (1) build-out of a publicly accessible office within the office of the city treasurer in City Hall; (2) hiring a director, assistant director and three case workers to provide services to small businesses, with staff positions funded for only six months; and (3) outreach to small businesses to educate them about the Small Business Assistance Center and its services.
Proposition I is an ordinance that was placed on the ballot by the mayor.
Background
There are approximately 106,000 registered businesses in San Francisco. More than 99 percent of those registered businesses have fewer than 100 employees - the target for the Small Business Assistance Center. Ninety-six percent of registered businesses in San Francisco have fewer than 20 employees.
Despite the overwhelming presence of small businesses in San Francisco's economy, there is widespread concern that the City's business permit and licensing processes are not responsive to the needs of small businesses. Permits are time consuming, costly, complex, convoluted and sometimes internally inconsistent. There are some 14 City departments with permit and licensing authority affecting small businesses. While the number of permits a business must obtain depends upon the nature of the business, most business at a minimum will need to receive permits and licenses from the departments of building inspection, planning, fire and health. To understand and conquer the permit gauntlet is a major challenge to a new or expanding established business. In order to navigate the process, businesses sometimes hire a "permit expediter" who understands the intricacy of the process. This is an expense many smaller companies cannot afford.
Over the decades, there have been numerous attempts to reform and streamline the permit and licensing processes, establish "one-stop shop" programs, and improve bureaucratic efficiency. Unfortunately, the problem remains.
In recent months, SPUR has been working through its Municipal Fiscal Advisory Committee on a related project to analyze and reform the restaurant permit and licensing process. The outcomes of this project will provide guidance for reform and streamlining that could be provided to the Small Business Commission and the proposed Small Business Assistance Center.
Through this project, SPUR and MFAC have learned that it is almost as important to assist businesses through a difficult local approval process as it is to educate them to effectively decide whether to go into business in the first place. Many small businesses fail not because of local permitting woes but because their business plan did not anticipate unexpected costs in the first few years and they lacked the capital to weather such changes.
In 2003, voters approved adding the Small Business Commission to City's charter. In this same ballot measure, voters expanded the commission's membership from five to seven, and revised the appointment and tenure structure of commissioners to give the Board of Supervisors three of the seven appointments. Commission staff consists of one director and one secretary.
Because of ongoing challenges facing small businesses, the mayor's fiscal year 2007-08 budget provided for the creation of a Small Business Assistance Center. This center was the subject of numerous public hearings during the budget deliberations. Ultimately, only about $150,000 was appropriated for the Small Business Assistance Center through the regular budget process, a sum that was insufficient to fund the creation of the center. Accordingly, the mayor sponsored the placement of the Small Business Assistance Center measure on the ballot.
Analysis
The proposed center would:
• Provide a one-stop shop to assist small businesses in obtaining City permits and licenses from other City departments (permits themselves would not be issued at the center).
• Improve small-business access to City financial and tax resources, and assistance in finding appropriate real-estate locations.
• Help small businesses that wish to bid on City contracts and participate in the City purchasing process.
• Assist small business with compliance with government laws and regulations.
• Support small businesses' adoption of "green" and sustainable business practices
• Strengthen City Internet services that support small business.
The proposal authorizes a single-year appropriation of $750,000 (available from the City's $20 million budget reserve) to establish the center. In subsequent years, the center will have to vie for funds through the normal budget process. The funding would be used for staffing, build-out costs (that is, tenant improvements to the space), marketing of the center's services, and improvement of Internet services. The budget calls for five staff positions, including three "case workers" to assist small businesses. The funds available should enable to center to operate for approximately six months.
The center's staff would report to the Small Business Commission yet would be physically located in the Treasurer's Office on the ground floor of City Hall. It is unusual in City government for an office that reports to an appointed commission to be located within a different elected official's office. This co-location could cause some problems with confidentiality, as the Treasurer's Office works with private information about individual property taxes that the staff of the center would not be privy to.
The center‘s director is proposed to be at the level of a department head, similar to the existing executive director position to the Small Business Commission. It is odd that there would be two similar entities - the commission's two-person staff and the proposed Small Business Assistance Center —that both report to the Small Business Commission. Some have questioned why the existing Small Business Commission could not simply be expanded to provide the services of the proposed center. According to the San Francisco City Charter, the commission, with only two staff members, is involved in development and review of policy, legislation and regulations; obtaining grants to assist smaller firms; and providing information to small businesses. It has had limited success in working with departments on systematic problems, such as the permit and license issue. The proposed center is meant to provide these new and additional functions.
The center would focus its efforts on firms with fewer than 100 employees. This is based on an analysis that other members of the City staff work directly with larger firms, particularly on development projects. Further, larger firms also have greater ability to hire professional support to navigate the permit and licensing processes, and in general have greater capacity to operate their enterprises.
The proposed center includes key measures for accountability. On a biannual basis, the Small Business Commission and the Controller's Office will evaluate the center's performance through a user survey. Some argue that the short time frame to demonstrate achievements through the annual survey, and the very low staffing levels, doom the concept to failure because there will not be sufficient time to organize and operate the programs. A pilot program may need more time to mature before it has to fight for funding with established City programs.
Pros
Those who support this measure claim:
• The proposed center may provide some relief and support to a beleaguered small-business community, thereby allowing small businesses to grow, create jobs and enhance the City's financial condition. A major focus will be on established San Francisco companies, especially in their efforts to comply with the City's substantial regulatory environment.
• This is a concrete step toward improving the permit and licensing processes, because data for reform and streamlining will be a product of the center's operation, as will informational materials to guide businesses.
• The measure establishes a pilot program with a non-recurring budget allocation, a built-in effectiveness-accountability survey, and focused program objectives.
• The measure will enable the Small Business Commission to focus on its charter-mandated responsibilities.
• This is an appropriate use of the ballot box to let the voters decide on a measure when political deadlock blocks action.
Cons
Those who oppose this measure claim:
• The measure does not directly address the underlying problem - the City's overly complex and costly permit and licensing process. Instead, it simply provides a bandage by paying for social workers for small businesses. Reducing the uncertainty and cost of the City's permit process would better assist small businesses.
• The one-year appropriation is a wonderful idea, a great way to experiment with a concept, yet the short timeline to a performance deadline (April 2008 for consideration in the mayor's budget) may doom the effort to failure because it might not be able to gather sufficient data to prove itself.
• This is another example of ballot-box budgeting by advocates who could not get their way through the normal legislative and budgetary processes, and burdens the ballot with an inappropriately detailed and small-scale measure.
• This measure, which was placed on the ballot shortly before the deadline for submissions, does not conform with the currently proposed charter amendment calling for increased openness in the ballot-measure process (Proposition C) that SPUR proposed and for which it is now leading the campaign. While the concept was the subject of prior public hearings (at the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee and the Small Business Commission), it was introduced late in the process without prior review.
• The mayor already has sufficient budget and powers to reassign staff to perform the same functions as proposed by the center, because it is essentially a pilot project. This measure exemplifies a tendency toward asking the voters to decide on such minutiae as the specific allocation of a very small sum of money. As such, it has no place on the ballot.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "Yes" vote on Proposition I. We had a tough time with this measure. While we actively support the concerns and needs of small businesses (and are involved with a thorough review of the permit process for restaurants), we do not support the use of the ballot box to gain passage of measures that have failed through the regular legislative process. Further, we believe that the mayor already has the power to assign staff to specific tasks and positions. Nevertheless, on balance this is a first step toward solving the challenges facing small business in San Francisco. The one-year funding and the inclusion of accountability measures allow for a vigorous debate about the efficacy of the center during next year's budget process.
Proposition J
"Adopting a Policy to Offer Free City-Wide Wireless High-Speed Internet Network"
WIFI POLICY STATEMENT
While Earthlink WiFi is no longer an option, the measure would show citywide support for wireless broadband - an important step toward reducing the digital divide.
This measure is a policy declaration that it should be a policy of San Francisco to accept the creation of a public-private partnership for a citywide wireless network or WiFi. The measure does not mention any particular private company the City should use to provide this service.
Background
WiFi is a broadband network that uses a radio transmission to provide wireless access to the Internet to anyone within its zone. Unlike other Internet delivery options such as DSL, fiber-optic cables or "dialup," it does not require a fixed infrastructure or digging up streets. Instead, the WiFi network can be delivered across a city through mounting a series of transponders on telephone poles, with each transponder delivering Internet access to a limited surrounding area.
In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that increasing digital inclusion was one of his signature policy goals. As a result, he created TechConnect, an initiative to explore how to deliver free wireless Internet throughout San Francisco. In 2005, the City issued a request for information and comment about the development and delivery of a free citywide WiFi network. After a lengthy public process, the City selected a team of EarthLink and Google. The EarthLink/Google team then began negotiations with the City over an agreement to develop and maintain a WiFi network across the entire city.
In January of 2007, the mayor introduced an ordinance to the Board of Supervisors to approve a public/private contract with Earthlink and its partner, Google, to provide citywide WiFi. Between January and March, the Board of Supervisors introduced and subsequently approved a resolution to carry out further analysis on a municipally owned wireless network (as opposed to the public/private network proposed by the mayor).
In April of 2007, the Planning Department determined that the wireless project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act's requirements for environmental review and does not require a full environmental impact review. Then in May, the Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to approve a pole-use agreement allowing EarthLink to use City
light poles to deploy the wireless network.
Since that time, the Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the ordinance that is required to approve the public/private partnership with Earthlink, but the board has delayed any decisions. In addition, there has been a challenge to the Planning Department's determination that the proposal is categorically exempt from CEQA.
In late August of 2007, Earthlink gave notice to the City that it was pulling out of the proposed contract with the City. This removes the possibility that Earthlink will be the vendor that provides free WiFi to city residents. Earthlink as a firm had begun to reevaluate the business model of building and operating WiFi systems for municipalities, and determined that it was not cost-effective.
ANAYLSIS
This policy statement was introduced on the final day for submission of ordinances and policy declarations to be included on the November ballot. It was submitted at a time when the mayor was waiting for the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed contract with Earthlink and the board was waiting for a response from Earthlink about some suggested modifications to the contract.
Now that Earthlink has pulled out of the proposed WiFi contract, the political benefits of the measure are less clear. At the time the measure was submitted, it could have been argued that putting this declaration of policy on the ballot would appear to be a political calculation. The goal of that effort, this logic goes, would have been to obtain a public vote showing broad support throughout San Francisco for a free wireless broadband network provided through a public-private partnership, which might have kept Earthlink at the negotiating table to agree to contract term changes the Board of Supervisors sought.
Because Earthlink has now removed itself from the contract negotiations, the measure could still serve the purpose of demonstrating support for public-private WiFi from a different vendor. When the city issued its request for information several years ago, there were numerous potential vendors (although Earthlink and Google were ultimately selected). It is possible that one of the other prior bidders would emerge as a potential vendor.
Earlier polls conducted since this proposal was initially introduced have showed that between 70 percent and 80 percent of San Franciscans support free wireless broadband service. Despite the board support, there have been numerous critics who sought to modify aspects of the proposed contract - including the speed for the free WiFi, the extent of privacy protections and location-based advertising. Others have sought to hold up the WiFi proposal because of an ideological belief that a municipally run WiFi system is preferable to a public-private partnership. Some have also argued for a different system using fiber-optic cable, which is undoubtedly faster than WiFi but is an entirely different technology with a different goal. Fiber is a fixed infrastructure while WiFi is for mobile applications. As a result of these numerous critiques and perspectives, members of the board have been negotiating to amend the proposed Earthlink contract for most of this year.
Prop. J differs from the specific contract proposal in that it includes a provision that expresses support for maximizing privacy safeguards in the public private WiFi system. It also notes the need to ensure standards of service and that there is agreement on a mutually amendable contract term that avoids a franchise relationship between the private company and the City.
Pros
Those who support this measure claim:
• If voters approve the ballot measure, it would put more pressure on the Board of Supervisors to adopt some kind of WiFi plan (a position that SPUR has endorsed).
• Broad public support for this policy declaration might help keep Earthlink at the negotiating table.
• It's a policy declaration for the right reasons:
> Supports privacy safeguards against the unauthorized sharing of personal information with third parties and the unnecessary retention of WiFi users' location
> Avoids a franchise relationship between a private entity and the City and County by endorsing a limited contract term
> Supports indemnity provisions that shift liability away from the City
• The underlying goal of providing a free wireless broadband service throughout the city through a public-private partnership is a public-policy goal that SPUR has already supported. This measure is a restatement of those goals.
Cons
Those who oppose this measure claim:
• The ballot box should not be used as a political lever in a contract negotiation between the City and a private company.
• Using the ballot box to pressure a private entity to modify its contract while its current contract with the City has been tied up by political infighting for almost a year sends a poor message to parties interested in doing business with the City. It also further cements the City's reputation as a hard place in which to do business.
• The City has sufficient challenges in its contracting process with vendors. Setting the precedent that the ballot box is a fair place to debate the merits of proposals from vendors sets a dangerous precedent that can easily be abused by proponents and opponents of specific contracts before the City.
• This appears to be a purely political measure created to attempt to shed responsibility from the supervisors and mayor for their inability to get a WiFi public-private partnership deal accomplished.
• This measure mistakenly focuses on WiFi as opposed to the overall need for broadband access and computers in the home. Closing the digital divide is the more important goal and should not be based on selecting a specific technology such as WiFi. Other wireless technologies (such as WiMAX) might be just as appropriate for delivering wireless broadband as WiFi.
• In general, policy declarations do not belong on the ballot, especially ones related to troubled contract negotiation between the City and County of San Francisco and a private business.
• This was a last-minute ballot submission that was submitted five minutes before the deadline and had no prior public hearing.
Recommendation
SPUR recommends a "Yes" vote on Proposition J. We were split on this issue. While we think that this measure reflects the worst abuses of last-minute ballot introductions and uses the public as a political lever in contract negotiations, we believe that the broader public good of delivering citywide wireless broadband outweighs these serious drawbacks. SPUR has already come out in support of the public–private delivery of WiFi. Passage of this policy declaration would continue our support for citywide wireless and could result in another vendor being selected to deliver a free citywide wireless - whether using WiFi or a different technology. Ultimately, we support the policy goals of the measure but dislike the approach.
PROPOSITION K
"Adopting a Policy to Restrict Advertising on Street Furniture and City Buildings"
STREET ADS AND MUNI FUNDING CUTS
Proposes to limit street advertisements as a direct challenge to the MTA's bus shelter contract. Threatens the increase from $440,000 to $15 million of annual revenue to the City that the contract would provide.
Proposition K, if approved by voters, would declare it to be the policy of the voters of San Francisco that there should be no increase in the number of advertisements on City-owned buildings and street furniture, including transit shelters, kiosks, benches and newspaper racks. Because it is a policy statement, it would not be legally binding. Four members of the Board of Supervisors placed Prop. K on the ballot.
Background
The City of San Francisco has contracts with private businesses to install and maintain street furniture such as bus shelters, kiosks, bathrooms and newspaper racks in the public right-of-way. In exchange for providing and maintaining these amenities, the vendors are allowed to place advertising signs on the structures. Depending on the contract, the City may or may not receive cash payments or a share of revenues from the advertising. The primary examples of this practice include:
• Bus Shelters and Kiosks: There are 1,139 bus shelters citywide, about 750 of which have advertising signs. There are also 39 street kiosks with advertising, found primarily on Market Street. The bus shelters and kiosks are part of the same contract. Advertising on these shelters is split between commercial materials and non-commercial materials such as public awareness campaigns and information. The current contract brings in $440,000 annually, shared evenly between the Arts Commission and the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency. At one time, the MTA provided and managed its own shelters, but it shifted to a private-vendor approach during the 1980s after the shelters fell into disrepair and took substantial public resources to maintain. A new version of this contract is being negotiated this year.
• Kiosks and Pay Toilets: The City, through the Department of Public Works, has a contract with a firm that installs self-cleaning toilets along with advertising kiosks. The City receives a share of advertising revenues averaging between $400,000 and $500,000 per year.
• Newspaper Racks: A third contract also through the Department of Public Works allows a private firm to replace individual newspaper racks with uniform racks containing multiple publications. This contract is designed to reduce the visual clutter of multiple freestanding racks. The City receives minimal revenues from this service, but recovers the cost of administering permit issuance and inspections. The firm under contract assumes the cost of installing and maintaining the racks. The program of replacing these racks has been underway for two years, but remains incomplete in a large portion of the city, and implementation is planned to continue over the next nine years.
Analysis
Prop. K appears as a response to a pending contract for replacing and building new transit shelters citywide and expanding the kiosks.
After the expiration of the current 20-year transit-shelter contract, the MTA issued a request for proposals for a new contract to build and maintain transit shelters and kiosks. The RFP included a mandatory minimum annual guarantee payment of $193 million over 20 years.
The RFP also called for a substantial increase in the number of transit shelters over the life of the contract - about 380 new shelters, 250 of which would have advertising space for growth in locations s
