San Francisco voters will be asked to decide on a number of ballot measures pertaining to the city’s affordable housing crisis. Voting takes place on Nov. 3, 2015. Find your polling place and complete voting information at the City and County of San Francisco Department of Elections website.
Proposition A – Affordable Housing Bond
How the ballot reads: To finance the construction, development, acquisition, and preservation of housing affordable to low- and middle-income households through programs that will prioritize vulnerable populations such as San Francisco’s working families, veterans, seniors, disabled persons; to assist in the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental apartment buildings to prevent the eviction of long-term residents; to repair and reconstruct dilapidated public housing; to fund a middle-income rental program; and to provide for home ownership down payment assistance opportunities for educators and middle-income households; shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $310 million in general obligation bonds, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits?
In a nutshell: Proposition A is a $310 million general obligation bond that’s being floated to finance the construction or rehabilitation of 30,000 affordable housing units. The bond measure requires two-thirds majority voter approval to pass.
Read more about Proposition A from KQED’s News Fix.
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
Proposition B – Paid Parental Leave for City Employees
How the ballot reads: Shall the City amend the Charter to allow parents who are both City employees to each take the maximum amount of paid parental leave for which they qualify for the birth, adoption or foster parenting of the same child, if both parents are City employees; and to provide each parent the opportunity to keep up to 40 hours of sick leave at the end of paid parental leave?
In a nutshell: If approved, Proposition B would allow both parents, if they are city employees, to take the maximum paid parental leave. Both parents could also keep up to 40 hours of paid sick leave at the end of paid parental leave. Proposition B requires majority approval to pass.
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
Proposition C – Expenditure Lobbyists
How the ballot reads: Shall the City regulate expenditure lobbyists by requiring them to register with the Ethics Commission, pay a $500 registration fee, and file monthly disclosures regarding their lobbying activities?
In a nutshell: If approved, Proposition C would define an expenditure lobbyist as any person or business who pays $2,500 or more in a calendar month to solicit, request or urge others to directly lobby city officers. Prop. C requires majority voter approval to pass.
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
Proposition D – Mission Rock Development
How the ballot reads: Shall the City increase the height limit for 10 of the 28 acres of the Mission Rock site from one story to height limits ranging from 40 to 240 feet and make it City policy to encourage the development on the Mission Rock site provided that it includes eight acres of parks and open space and housing of which at least 33% is affordable for low- and middle-income households?
In a nutshell: If approved, Proposition D would allow changes to building height limits at 10 of 24 acres at Mission Rock. The Mission Rock development plan includes 1,000 to 1,950 residential units, most of which are rentals. At least 33 percent of the units must be affordable to low- and middle-income households. Prop. D requires majority voter approval to pass.
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
Proposition E – Requirements for Public Meetings
How the ballot reads: Shall the City broadcast all City meetings live on the Internet; allow members of the public to submit electronically during the meeting live, written, video, or audio comments from any location and require those comments be played; require pre-recorded video testimony to be played during a meeting; and allow the public or board, commission, or committee members to request that discussion of a particular agenda item begin at a specific time?
In a nutshell: If approved, Prop. E would amend San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance to require the city to broadcast all city meetings live on the Internet. The public would also be able to submit written, video or audio to those meetings from anywhere. Prop. E requires majority voter approval to pass.
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
Proposition F – Short-Term Residential Rentals
How the ballot reads: Shall the City limit short-term rentals of a housing unit to 75 days per year regardless of whether the rental is hosted or unhosted; require owners to provide proof that they authorize the unit as a short-term rental; require residents who offer short-term rentals to submit quarterly reports on the number of days they live in the unit and the number of days the unit is rented; prohibit short-term rentals of in-law units; allow interested parties to sue hosting platforms; and make it a misdemeanor for a hosting platform to unlawfully list a unit as a short-term rental?
In a nutshell: Prop. F seeks to impose tougher restrictions on short-term rentals by limiting them to 75 days per year across the board, requiring property owners to provide proof that they authorize short-term rentals and imposing provisions to ensure that private rentals are paying hotel taxes and complying with city codes, among other things. Prop. F requires majority voter approval to pass.
KQED’s News Fix: How San Francisco’s Prop. F Would Change Airbnb Rentals
Listen to a debate about Proposition F from KQED’s Forum.
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
Propositions G and H — Definitions of Renewable Electricity Sources for CleanPowerSF
We need to break from our guide format a little to describe the unusual circumstances surrounding Prop. G and Prop. H. Both measures treat the same subject: Precisely what sources of power may be termed renewable or “green” for San Francisco’s planned CleanPowerSF program and what disclosures the program will make to consumers about where it gets its electricity. CleanPowerSF, scheduled to launch in early 2016, aims to offer city residents cleaner energy (less dependent on non-renewable sources, mainly fossil fuels) than currently available through PG&E. Similar programs are already operating in Marin and Sonoma counties.
Proposition G was launched by IBEW Local 1245, a union that represents line and clerical workers at PG&E (and many other companies). Prop. G, positioned partly as a local jobs issue, would narrow the kinds of electricity that CleanPowerSF could call green by excluding potentially “dirty” power procured through the use of unbundled renewable energy credits. The measure would also have barred power produced by rooftop solar arrays, an increasingly important source, from being classified as “renewable greenhouse-gas free electricity.”
Proponents of CleanPowerSF, including both moderates and progressive on the Board of Supervisors, attacked Prop. G as a tactic to undermine the new alternative power program. They produced Proposition H, which would allow the city to use the state’s definition of renewable energy sources any time it officially uses terms like “clean energy” or “green energy.” By using the state’s definition, CleanPowerSF may take advantage of unbundled renewable energy credits.
Here’s the twist: Confronted with Proposition H, the backers of Proposition G reconsidered. They agreed to abandon Prop. G in exchange for a compromise: The Prop. H authors, led by Supervisor London Breed, would include provisions a) requiring the city to try to limit the use of the unbundled renewable energy credits for CleanPowerSF and b) urging the city to inform consumers of the composition of CleanPowerSF’s energy portfolio in upcoming mailings.
With that deal in place, IBEW 1245 joined Breed, Mayor Ed Lee and most of the Board of Supervisors in support of Prop. H and against Prop. G. That means there is no ballot argument in favor of Prop. G.
More details on G and H as they appear on the ballot:
Proposition G: How the ballot reads: Shall the City define “renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity” to mean electricity derived exclusively from certain renewable resources located within or adjacent to the California border or electricity derived from Hetch Hetchy, except for electricity from other types of resources such as rooftop solar and other large hydroelectric facilities; require CleanPowerSF to inform customers and potential customers of the planned percentage of “renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity” to be provided; and prohibit CleanPowerSF from marketing, advertising or making any public statement that its electricity is “clean” or “green” unless the electricity is “renewable, greenhouse gas-free electricity” as defined in this measure?
Read the ballot guide summary with argument against
Proposition H: How the ballot reads: Shall the City use the State definition of “eligible renewable energy resources” when referring to terms such as “clean energy,” “green energy,” and “renewable Greenhouse Gas-free Energy”; and shall CleanPowerSF be urged to inform customers and potential customers of the planned percentage of types of renewable energy to be supplied in each communication; and shall it be City policy for CleanPowerSF to use electricity generated within California and San Francisco when possible?
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
KALW: S.F.’s Prop. G authors say vote for competing measure, Prop. H
S.F. Public Press: Propositions G and H: Defining ‘Clean’ or ‘Green’ Energy
Proposition I – Suspension of Market-Rate Housing in the Mission District
How the ballot reads: Shall the City suspend the issuance of permits on certain types of housing and business development projects in the Mission District for at least 18 months; and develop a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan for the Mission District by January 31, 2017?
In a nutshell: Proposition I seeks to impose a temporary moratorium on luxury housing construction in San Francisco’s Mission District for at least 18 months, halting the construction of market-rate housing and any project larger than five units. It would also develop a stabilization plan to preserve land that could be used for affordable housing in the area, which has been impacted by gentrification and displacement of long-time residents. Prop. I requires majority approval to pass.
KQED’s News Fix: San Francisco Supervisors Debate Proposed Market-Rate Housing Moratorium
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
Proposition J – Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund
How the ballot reads: Shall the City establish a Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund, which would give grants to Legacy Businesses and to building owners who lease space to those businesses for terms of at least 10 years; and expand the definition of a Legacy Business to include those that have operated in San Francisco for more than 20 years, are at risk of displacement and meet the other requirements of the Registry?
In a nutshell: Prop. J would create the Legacy Business Historic Legacy Fund. Legacy businesses would be granted $500 per full-time employee. Building owners who lease to legacy businesses for at least 10 years could also receive an annual grant of $4.50 per square foot of leased space. Prop. J expands the definition of a legacy business to include businesses and nonprofits that have been in the city for over 20 years, have contributed to the history or identity of a neighborhood, or face risk of displacement because of rent increases or lease termination. Prop. J requires majority voter approval to pass.
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
Proposition K – Surplus Public Lands
How the ballot reads: Shall the City expand the allowable uses of surplus property to include building affordable housing for a range of households from those who are homeless or those with very low income to those with incomes up to 120% of the area median income; and, for projects of more than 200 units, make some housing available for households earning up to 150% or more of the area median income?
In a nutshell: If approved, Prop. K would permit San Francisco “to expand the allowable uses of surplus property to include building affordable housing for a range of households from those who are homeless or those with very low income to those with incomes up to 120 percent of the area median income. For projects of more than 200 units, some housing would be available for households earning up to 150 percent or more of the median income.” Prop. K requires majority approval to pass.
Read the ballot guide summary with arguments for and against
Guide to San Francisco 2015 Ballot Propositions A to K
