Source: http://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/office-development-candlestick-point-and-hunters-point
Timestamp: 2017-06-26 22:30:13
Document Index: 364286071

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 2', '§ 380', '§ 9217', '§ 390', '§ 9217', '§ 320', 'ART 1', 'ART 2', 'ART 4']

Office Development in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point | San Francisco Voter Guide
Words You Need to Know An Overview of San Francisco’s Debt Local Ballot Measures Proposition A: School Bonds Proposition B: City College Parcel Tax Proposition C: Loans to Finance Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing Proposition D: Vacancy Appointments Proposition E: Responsibility for Maintaining Street Trees and Surrounding Sidewalks Proposition F: Youth Voting in Local Elections Proposition G: Police Oversight Proposition H: Public Advocate Proposition I: Funding for Seniors and Adults with Disabilities Proposition J: Funding for Homelessness and Transportation Proposition K: General Sales Tax Proposition L: MTA Appointments and Budget Proposition M: Housing and Development Commission Proposition N: Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections Proposition O: Office Development in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Proposition P: Competitive Bidding for Affordable Housing Projects on City-Owned Property Proposition Q: Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks Proposition R: Neighborhood Crime Unit Proposition S: Allocation of Hotel Tax Funds Proposition T: Restricting Gifts and Campaign Contributions from Lobbyists Proposition U: Affordable Housing Requirements for Market-Rate Development Projects Proposition V: Tax on Distributing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Proposition W: Real Estate Transfer Tax on Properties Over $5 Million Proposition X: Preserving Space for Neighborhood Arts, Small Businesses and Community Services in Certain Neighborhoods District Measure RR: BART Safety, Reliability and Traffic Relief. You are hereHome › Local Ballot Measures › O
Controller’s Statement on “O”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition O:
Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would likely result in the acceleration of new office construction in the City that could otherwise be prohibited for several years. The ordinance would therefore likely result in a period of higher tax revenues offset in part by higher City costs required to serve a higher number of workers in the City. Actual City revenues and costs would depend on a host of future factors, including the overall pace of office construction in the City, the specific projects that might occur more rapidly as a result of the measure, and the specific revenues and costs resulting from those projects.
The proposed ordinance would modify sections of the San Francisco Planning Code previously implemented by Proposition M, passed by the voters in 1986, to exclude office development on specific properties within the Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard (CP/HPS) redevelopment area from the square footage limitations and administrative approvals required under Proposition M. Further, the proposed ordinance would exclude any office development in the specified area from counting towards the overall annual citywide limit.
While the annual limit established in Proposition M has never been reached, the Planning Department expects that this limit will be reached in the coming year due to unusually high demand for office space. Thus, the proposed ordinance would allow the development of additional CP/HPS office space in any year in which the annual limit is reached. In general, developing property for office uses increases property assessed value, and thus property tax revenue to the City. Other tax revenues are also generated through the use of office properties. The revenues resulting from these projects would likely be partially offset by higher City transit and other costs required to serve a higher number of workers in the City.
How “O” Got on the Ballot
On July 18, 2016, the Department of Elections certified that the initiative petition calling for Proposition O to be placed on the ballot had a sufficient number of valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition O
Prop O is the next step in bringing affordable homes, jobs and parks to the former naval base that was once the economic engine for Bayview, Hunters Point and Candlestick Point neighborhoods.
That’s why we three long-time Bayview leaders have sponsored Proposition O.
We have made progress at Hunters Point – building hundreds of affordable homes, dedicating millions in funding to job training, and creating significant new jobs with 23% secured by Bayview Hunters Point residents. But there’s so much more left to do. San Francisco needs to speed up the construction of new affordable homes. Prop O jumpstarts the construction of 10,500 new homes, with 32% affordable for low and middle-income residents.
These homes were overwhelmingly approved by San Francisco voters 8 years ago. Prop O makes sure we get the housing now, rather than decades from now.
And Prop O will bring on line faster the 17,000 new permanent jobs, with a strong local hire commitment, that were approved by voters in 2008. It is fine to limit new office space in many parts of the City. But the old, abandoned Hunters Point Shipyard and surrounding areas is precisely where we want new office growth, particularly office space for non-profits, space for artists, clean technology companies and other uses that create new jobs and opportunities for our residents.
That’s why a broad diversity of San Franciscans representing every corner of our city including elected leaders, community leaders, business groups, and housing and advocacy organizations, and so many more agree – YES on Proposition O!
Please join us at www.JobsHousingParksNow.com
School Board Member Shamann Walton*
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition O
The Proponent argument simply mis-states the facts: Lennar's proposed 5 million square feet of new office- equal to 10 Transamerica buildings- according to City studies, will create a demand for 2,600 new affordable homes in San Francisco.
They will provide only 809 such homes, with 1,650 units of rebuilt existing public housing and 900 units at prices above affordable levels. That's the "32% affordable" claimed by the sponsors.
The rest of the housing will be priced at luxury prices unable to be afforded by any but 1% of San Franciscans.
Not one new home, not one new park, not one new job is being offered for doubling the office space from the 2008 deal Lennar made with the voters.
O is a bad deal for San Franciscans forcing thousands of us to compete for affordable housing which simply does not exist, fueling displacement which transforms our neighborhoods making our City less livable for us all.
That's why every major tenant organization and neighborhood coalition opposes O.
Opponent's Argument Against Proposition O
Opponent Argument to Proposition O
Proposition O will double to 5 million square feet of high rise offices allowed in the Lennar development at the Shipyard and Candlestick Point without any additional public benefit to its neighbors or the City: not one new acre of parks, not one new affordable home, not one new job committed to residents of the Bayview or the City, and not one new bus or bicycle lane. By adding thousands of new workers without additional commitments to housing or transporting them Proposition O will cost residents to pay for transit and cause increased evictions in nearby neighborhoods.
In 2008 Lennar promised San Francisco voters in Proposition G that if we approved the project with 2 m/s/f of office there would be full "public review of development" and it would "minimize any adverse impacts on the City's General Fund". Lennar now proposes to exempt all office space from the Planning Code so there will be no Planning Commission hearings on the new office buildings or any mitigation of their housing and transit impacts on the City's General Fund.
O totally negates the promises made by Lennar to us in 2008 and only benefits the developer, not its neighbors or the rest of the City.
Douglas Engmann, former Planning Commissioner*
Sue Hestor, environmental lawyer*
Calvin Welch, affordable housing advocate*
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition O
As long-time Bayview leaders who have been active in creating our community-based plan to revitalize the abandoned Hunters Point Shipyard, we urge voters to vote YES on O.
This plan has been decades in the making. It has been crafted and approved by the community, and it has also been approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and—most importantly—the voters of San Francisco.
This plan will bring construction of 10,500 new homes with 32% affordable for low-income and middle-class residents. It will bring thousands of construction jobs and up to 17,000 permanent jobs, with a strong local hire commitment. And it will bring significant community benefits including job training for Bayview and San Francisco residents.
Proposition O is the next step in bringing the plan to reality.
It is important to know that Prop O does not increase the amount of office space in the Hunters Point and Candlestick Point project area by a single foot. The Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission—with the guidance of the voters of San Francisco with passage of Proposition G in 1998—approved 5.15 million square feet of office space.
Prop O does just one thing—it speeds the approval of office space construction in this area so that we can realize the affordable housing, jobs and significant community benefits more quickly.
Please join with us and vote Yes on O.
Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt, Chair, CAC Hunters Point Shipyard*
Shamann Walton, Vice-President, San Francisco Board of Education*
Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition O
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O
BRING JOBS BACK TO HUNTERS POINT!
Proposition O brings jobs back to residents of our southeastern neighborhoods lost when the Shipyard closed. In 2008 voters approved a ballot measure encouraging the building of homes, office and retail on the Shipyard and Candlestick sites, but commercial development must compete with permits from throughout the city. Neighborhood residents placed Proposition O on the ballot to jump start this much needed development, bringing economic vitality and jobs back to Bayview-Hunters Point.
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and our 2,500 local businesses. The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
FULFILL THE PROMISE TO BAYVIEW RESIDENTS --- Let's get jobs back to Bayview-Hunter's Point and rebuild the Shipyard and Candlestick NOW.
The Alliance for Jobs, a partnership of civic, labor and business organizations, wants to see our Southeast area grow and prosper. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION O.
Democratic Party Says YES On O
Proposition O addresses two of the most critical issues facing San Francisco today: income inequality and the lack of affordable housing. We urge San Francisco Democrats who share our concern for these issues to join us in voting Yes on O.
In 2008, the San Francisco Democratic Party stood with the Bayview Hunters Point community in support of Proposition G to bring affordable homes, jobs with local hire, and economic opportunity to the long-abandoned Hunters Point Shipyard.
The first phase of development at the Shipyard has already brought substantial benefits to the community, creating a significant amount of new jobs with 23% going to BVHP residents, the ongoing rebuild of Alice Griffith public housing, and additional affordable homes.
Prop O is vital to ensuring that this progress continues without unnecessary delays. We need these benefits now, not decades from now. Please vote YES on O.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Jobs, Housing and Parks Now for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: FivePoint Holdings, LLC.
San Francisco Unions Say Yes On O For Jobs, Housing And Parks NOW
Eight years ago, organized labor was proud to join with Bayview community leaders, affordable housing advocates and working families to support Proposition G. At that time, labor helped craft a ground-breaking agreement to ensure that 32% of the over 10,000 homes planned for construction would be priced at levels affordable for very low-income and working families.
Additional community benefits negotiated by labor included a commitment to provide $27.3 million for hundreds more affordable homes and $8.5 million for workforce training.
This year, we strongly support Proposition O because it speeds the construction of new affordable homes and good-paying jobs when we need them the most. It does this without any displacement of existing residents.
San Francisco and the Bayview need new jobs, parks and housing now. Please join us in voting YES on O.
Michael Theriault, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council
Larry Mazzola, Jr., UA Local 38 Plumbers and Pipefitters Union
Vince Courtney, LiUNA! Local 261
African American Leaders, Tenant Groups & Bayview Neighbors Urge You To Vote Yes On O
The closure of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in 1974 ushered in four decades of unemployment, economic hardship, neglect and decline in Bayview Hunters Point. That needs to stop Now! We need real solutions to real problems, not more politics and promises. We need to rebuild our economy and bring jobs back to our African American community. Proposition O will bring thousands of construction jobs and 17,000 new permanent jobs to Bayview Hunters Point. And, it will do it now—not 20, 30, 40 years from now. Proposition O will create new places to work and shop, new low cost and affordable housing along with new parks and open space. The US Navy brought prosperity to San Francisco's Bayview in World War II employing tens of thousands of African Americans. They worked hard, raised families, educated their children and became Bayview homeowners. They built a vibrant community, contributed to our economy and cultural life and took pride in the community they built. Let's restore the hope and promise that the Shipyard once brought to Bayview Hunters Point. Please vote Yes on Proposition O.
Linda Fadeke Richardson, Former Chair, Land Use, Planning and Transportation, Bayview Hunters Point Project Area Committee*
AI Williams Bayview Merchants Association & President of the African American Historical Society*
Kimberley Hill-Brown, Secretary, Public Housing Tenant Association
Neola Gans, Treasurer, Public Housing Tenant Association*
Jai Gans
Olushade Unger
Asian Housing And Community Organizations Endorse YES On O
Preserving and creating new affordable housing is our number one priority and that's why we strongly support Prop O. Prop O removes obstacles to the creation of 12,000 new homes for San Francisco. Approximately 32% are guaranteed affordable to low-income and working families. An additional $27.5 million has been pledged to create hundreds more affordable homes. With the ongoing construction of the Central Subway, these homes will be directly linked to Downtown, Chinatown and the rest of San Francisco. This is the right place for building new homes and now is the right time to accelerate construction. Please vote YES on O.
Pastor Arelious Walker Urges YES On Jobs, Housing and Parks, YES On Prop O
Each week we ask our parishioners to live lives of grace, to care for their neighbors and reach outside themselves to help the less fortunate. Now we ask all San Francisco voters to help their neighbors by supporting Jobs, Housing and Parks NOW for Bayview Hunters Point.
Proposition O will speed construction at the abandoned Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point and build a new community for all San Franciscans to enjoy.
It will foster economic investment in our Bayview neighborhoods and improve the quality of life for those who have suffered way too long from poverty, unemployment and neglect. The Shipyard/Candlestick Point Project means good paying jobs, affordable housing, parks and many other public amenities for our most needy families—at NO taxpayer expense and no displacement of existing residents. In fact, the project sponsor has pledged $90 million in grants to benefit our community.
The Bible teaches us to “Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression.” (Isaiah 1:17) As a community of faith we ask you to do good. Care for others. Bring Social Justice to Bayview Hunters Point. Vote Yes on Jobs, Housing & Parks NOW. Vote Yes on Proposition O.
Pastor Arelious Walker*
Park Advocates Say Yes To Parks For the Bayview, Yes On O
One of the great attributes of San Francisco is our many world-class parks. Unfortunately, since the Navy closed down Hunters Point Shipyard, hundreds of acres of abandoned land along the San Francisco waterfront have been inaccessible to San Franciscans —including members of the Bayview Hunters Point Community who live right next door.
Proposition O will speed the creation of over 300 acres of parks, beaches and open space for San Franciscans, including the addition of biking and pedestrian trails, scenic lookouts, sculpture art and playgrounds. Once complete, nearly half of the Shipyard/Candlestick Point project will be dedicated to parks and open spaces.
This November, join us in saying YES to Parks and YES to a healthy environment for Bayview Hunters Point.
Commissioner Mark Buell, President, San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission*
Commissioner Allen Low, Vice President, San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission*
Commissioner Kat Anderson, San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission*
Affordable Housing Alliance Supports Yes On O
The San Francisco Affordable Housing Alliance has been fighting to protect tenants and affordable housing for over 35 years. We have helped expand rent control, limit annual rent increases, prevent the demolition of affordable and rent-controlled housing and protect renters from unjust evictions.
We strongly support Proposition O because it speeds construction of thousands of new affordable homes for San Franciscans. Proposition O builds housing the right way. It will not displace a single tenant because the housing will be built on undeveloped land at the long-abandoned Hunters Point Shipyard.
Proposition O is a win-win—for tenants, for the Bayview and for San Francisco.
Mayor Ed Lee Supports Proposition O
San Francisco needs Jobs, Housing and Parks Now. It's a matter of civic urgency and pride!
The long abandoned Hunters Point Naval Shipyard has been a disgrace for four decades. More importantly, it’s been a lost opportunity for our great City. It is:
• An opportunity to provide good paying jobs and job training for San Franciscans;
• An opportunity to house our families in housing San Franciscans can afford;
• And, a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform the long-abandoned naval base, the largest piece of undeveloped land in San Francisco, into a spectacular greenbelt of waterfront parks that will rival Golden Gate Park and the Presidio.
At Candlestick Point we can turn unused land into:
• New businesses committed to hiring local residents,
• More homes at all affordability levels,
• And, a retail shopping center that will bring the spending power of the entire region to our Bayview Hunters Point neighbors who have the City’s highest jobless rate and lowest medium incomes.
San Francisco has a vision. We have a plan. It’s time to lift the construction barriers and get to work. Make the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point a new source of our civic pride. Vote Yes on Proposition O.
Supervisors Aaron Peskin And Jane Kim Support Yes On O
We support the Shipyard/Candlestick Point Project and Proposition O because it's the right way to increase affordable housing for San Franciscans.
12,000 new homes will be built at an abandoned site along the Southeastern waterfront. It's prime land with great potential and appropriate for a mix of residential and commercial development. There will be no displacement of existing residents and no Ellis Act evictions.
Almost one-third of the homes will be affordable. That's thousands of new homes for low-income and working families—exceeding the current 25 percent affordability requirement and almost three times the 12 percent set aside that existed before we pushed for an increase this year.
The Jobs, Housing and Parks NOW Initiative will ensure a steady stream of private funding to ease our housing crisis, to build parks, to create new office space, new jobs and bring new businesses to Bayview Hunters Point.
And it won't cost taxpayers one cent.
We're building a new community the right way. Help us get the job done. Yes on Proposition O. Supervisor Aaron Peskin*
Transportation Advocates Support Proposition O
Office development at the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point will help relieve congestion downtown and prevent companies from relocating to Oakland, the East Bay and the Peninsula. With the construction of the Central Subway, Caltrain and expanded bus service this area will be connected by rapid transit to the rest of the City and the region.
Let's keep San Francisco the center of Bay Area economic development and bring jobs to all those who seek them. Chairman Tom Nolan, SFMTA Board of Directors*
Gwyneth Borden, SFMTA Board of Directors*
Malcom Heinicke, SFMTA Board of Directors*
San Francisco's LGBT Leaders Say YES On O
We support Prop O because, by approving the construction of office development at Hunters Point Shipyard, it will bring more quickly the jobs, parks and affordable housing San Francisco needs. Over 3,000 new affordable homes for low and middle-income residents will be built in San Francisco at a time when we need them the most. These homes have already been planned, studied and approved by both city government and San Francisco voters. Now it's time to remove the obstacles and build them.
City College Trustee Alex Randolph*
Petra DeJesus San Francisco Police Commissioner*
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: FivePoint Holding, LLC.
San Francisco Business Groups, YES To Jobs For SF, YES On O
The social and cultural development of the Bayview Hunter's Point Shipyard has a storied history from construction of the first dry docks in the 1800's, through World War II to the 1970's when the Navy closed the shipyard leaving thousands of San Franciscans without work.
Now, after more than 40 years of neglect, the Bayview is once again poised to become San Francisco's economic engine.
The Shipyard/Candlestick Point plan, approved by voters in 2008, allows for the revitalization of the Shipyard with housing, office space and parks. It will bring tens of thousands of jobs to Bayview Hunters Point, new opportunities for restaurants and other small businesses, and economic benefits to the entire city.
Honor the will of the Voters. Say Yes to Proposition O.
Former Mayor Willie Brown Calls On San Franciscans To Vote Yes On O
As Mayor of San Francisco, I was proud to sign a landmark agreement with the Navy in 2000 to clean up Hunters Point Shipyard and transfer the property to San Francisco for new housing and commercial development.
Proposition O is critical to fulfilling that vision for a clean, safe revitalized Shipyard.
It will bring life back to the long abandoned Shipyard and neighboring Candlestick Point. It means new jobs, business opportunities and affordable housing. It will transform our southeast waterfront into a vast green belt of parks with spectacular views, beaches, walking and biking paths and expanded public transit.
And, it comes with a pledge of $90 million dollars in private grants for health care, recreation, youth, seniors, the disabled, the homeless and other important community programs.
Our Bayview Hunters Point community has lived through the closure of the Shipyard and suffered the impact of unemployment and economic inequality. It has fewer parks than any neighborhood in San Francisco. It has the City’s lowest median income and the highest unemployment and crime rates.
Proposition O will bring economic, social and environmental justice to Bayview Hunters Point. It will right past wrongs and make our great City whole again. Vote Yes on Jobs, Housing and Parks NOW for a better San Francisco.
Willie L. Brown, Jr., Former Mayor*
State Assemblymember David Chiu Endorses Prop O
Earlier this year, after outgrowing our longtime place on Polk Street, my wife and I moved with our newborn baby boy to Candlestick Point. We were attracted to the Bayview by its ethnic diversity, rich heritage, warm weather and majestic waterfront. And we were fortunate to find a home we could finally afford to own.
For decades, the Bayview has faced numerous challenges. Our new neighbors have shared their struggles with job opportunities, public safety and substandard housing, as well as the absence of parks and open space that other San Franciscans take for granted. Given the lack of economic and social justice, I’ve often said that when the Bayview succeeds, our entire city will have succeeded.
In 2010, while President of the Board of Supervisors, I worked hard with Bayview residents and community leaders to build the consensus needed to approve the Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point project. The plan established a public-private partnership to transform San Francisco’s deserted Southeast waterfront into a place for our families and neighbors to live, work and play.
The Jobs, Housing and Parks Now Initiative moves this plan forward. It will jumpstart green office construction for research and development, nonprofits and other new businesses. It will generate jobs with a living wage for local residents, new housing for those of low and moderate income and miles of new parks, beaches, walking trails and bike paths.
My wife and I chose Candlestick Point to raise our family because we’re excited about its future. We believe the Shipyard/Candlestick Point plan will bring economic and social justice to our newly adopted Bayview-Hunters Point community, while preserving its rich culture and history. Please help make it happen - vote Yes on Proposition O.
San Francisco Fire Fighters Urge You to Vote Yes on O
The average median home price in San Francisco is $1.127 million. The average one-bedroom apartment rents for $3,425 a month and a two-bedroom costs $4,440.
So it’s not surprising that working men and women—including fire fighters, police officers, teachers and health care workers—can no longer afford to live in San Francisco.
Fire fighters are struggling to stay in the city they protect and serve. And while we are grateful for the City’s down payment assistance program, it is not nearly enough to bridge San Francisco’s affordability gap.
We need the affordable housing planned at The Shipyard and Candlestick Point— thousands of new homes for low and middle income San Franciscans.
Fire fighters risk their lives every day to protect San Francisco. Let’s build affordable housing to bring our fire fighters home and keep our city safe. Jobs, Housing & Parks Now! Vote Yes on Proposition O.
Vote Yes On O. It's Fiscally Responsible!
Proposition O is a straight-forward voter initiative designed to enhance revenue-producing uses for the abandoned former Navy shipyard.
It’s consistent with voters will in 2008 approving Prop G to build a project that funds itself, not soak beleaguered taxpayers with developer giveaways.
Proposition O authorizes a purely private revamping of a long-abandoned area with housing, office and other revenue-producing uses providing good jobs for San Franciscans.
San Francisco taxpayers benefit from Proposition O. Vote YES.
San Francisco Taxpayer Association
The SF Housing Action Coalition Says YES to Housing Now, Vote YES on Prop O
San Francisco badly needs more housing today to meet the City's growing population. Prop O is a key part of the solution to our housing shortage.
Prop O removes obstacles to building over 12,000 new homes, including thousands of affordable homes. Prop O means adding these new homes to the City’s housing pipeline today—not in a decade.
In 2008, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved the homes, parks and jobs that this important project would deliver. But without your support, the construction of these new homes would be delayed by rules established decades ago for downtown office buildings. Applying those rules on this empty land makes no sense.
Prop O means revitalizing the long-abandoned former naval base that was once an economic engine for the entire southeast part of San Francisco. Join us in saying yes to these homes, jobs and parks. No more delays—there’s too much at stake. Vote YES on Prop O!
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition*
Proposition O will lift restrictions on development of new office space in Hunters Point and Candlestick Point. The construction of new office space will provide jobs in the City. The new businesses that move into this office space will provide new, much-needed employment opportunities to residents of Hunters Point.
Please join us in supporting new jobs and economic growth in San Francisco.
Chantal Anderson, Christopher L. Bowman, Charles Cagnon, Howard Epstein, Stephanie Jeong, Ken Loo, Lisa Remmer, Sarah Storelli
Paid Arguments Against Proposition O
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition O
Too much development too fast causes problems. Developers already can build nearly a million square feet of new office space every year under voter-approved limits, and Hunters Point/Candlestick, as a former redevelopment area, already receives priority over other private development under that cap. This proposal is unnecessary and inappropriate. Special treatment here will result in more development downtown, and more ballot measures like this one.
Vote No on Prop O!
When the City allows job growth without requiring housing for the new workers current residents are evicted.
Lennar asks to more than double the office space in the project but makes no effort to increase its original affordable housing commitment pledged in 2008, still unfulfilled. Also missing is any additional funding for public transit for the 8,000 new office workers to be added in an area poorly served by public transit.
This giveaway is a dangerous precedent and will affect tenants citywide.
Prop O is a bad deal for San Franciscans: we pay for the housing and transit and Lennar get the profits.
San Francisco Tenants Union PODER
Measure O applies only to the developer Lennar, who is seeking a loophole in city law to be exempted from San Francisco's office cap. This would allow them to build more than five million square feet of office space and add over fifteen thousand new workers without addressing impacts on housing and transportation.
Developers are spending a lot of money to define city policy. The result: Displacement of San Francisco's last remaining working class communities of color. San Francisco doesn't need more office space until new housing is built and job commitments are fulfilled!
In addition to increasing displacement in the Bayview, Lennar's special exemption will encourage developers throughout the City to seek their own exemptions to Prop M. This means San Francisco's most vulnerable neighborhoods like Potrero Hill, SOMA and the Mission will see further loss of arts and light industrial space (i.e. the Redlick Building that converted Mission arts space to tech offices) and loss of land for affordable housing (i.e. the 5M project that rezoned the SOMA Youth and Family district for a huge office tower).
Lennar has posted record profits but continues to delay its required jobs, housing and community investments, resulting in increased poverty, displacement, unemployment, and homelessness in the Bayview Black community.
It's time to bring affordable housing, local hiring, jobs and transit balance back to our neighborhoods. Vote NO on Proposition O!
Bayview ACCE Supervisor John Avalos Ebony Isler, Bayview Community Advocate
United to Save The Mission Coalition on Homelessness
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee to Save Our Neighborhoods. Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
This Initiative shall be known and may be cited as the “Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Jobs Stimulus Proposition” (referred to hereinafter as the “Initiative”).
(a) In 2008, San Francisco voters adopted Proposition G, the Bayview Jobs, Park and Housing Initiative, by a 63% to 37% vote. Proposition G sought to revitalize the Bayview Hunters Point area with hundreds of acres of parks, significant jobs and economic development opportunities, and a substantial number of affordable and market-rate homes. Proposition G recognized that the closure of the Hunters Point Shipyard, once a thriving maritime industrial center and leading hub of employment, had resulted in significant job losses, which had profoundly affected the economics of the area. Accordingly, the voters envisioned substantial redevelopment of the area, including office development that was designed to replace the high-quality, permanent jobs lost when the Shipyard closed.
(b) Since 2008, extensive environmental and public review has been undertaken. Redevelopment plans, area plans, zoning ordinances and agreements have been approved and entered into. For the property shown on the maps below (Hunters Point Shipyard Phase 2 and Candlestick Point), various approval documents allow and provide for extensive development, including the following: Approximately 330 acres for parks and open space, and approximately 370 acres for housing, research and technology jobs, retail sales, office space, and workspace for artists;
10,500 housing units, of which approximately one-third must be priced at below-market prices;
5,150,000 square feet of research and development, and office uses;
885,000 square feet of retail and entertainment uses.
(c) It has been eight years since Proposition G was passed, and the jobs envisioned in Proposition G have not yet materialized. The office uses, which are a key component of the plan to regenerate jobs lost to the Shipyard closure, face a special hurdle: a 1986 initiative called Proposition M. Among other things, Proposition M imposed a growth management program on office space, generally limiting office development to 950,000 square feet per year. The Bayview Hunters Point office development anticipated in Proposition G and in the subsequent approvals could wait many years before being built because of this program. However, Proposition M was adopted decades ago, when it was assumed office development would be concentrated in the downtown area. Hunters Point Shipyard Phase 2 and Candlestick Point are not located downtown—they are located on and around the site of the decommissioned Hunters Point Shipyard and former Candlestick Park in the southeastern part of the City. If left unamended, the growth management program of Proposition M would thwart the voters’ desire to revitalize the area and expedite development of job-creating uses.
(d) This Initiative amends the provisions of Proposition M and the San Francisco Planning Code that regulate the pace of office development. It removes Hunters Point Shipyard Phase 2 and Candlestick Point from the area within which an allocation or project authorization allowing office development may be required. This Initiative is intended to facilitate a rational development pace for this area, and to implement the voters’ desire to realize the revitalization contemplated in Proposition G. To achieve these goals, this Initiative would also establish a policy that development applications shall be processed and decided quickly, and development expedited. (e) This Initiative would not affect the applicability of the office development controls enacted by Proposition M to other areas of the City. This Initiative also would not affect the applicability of the priority policies adopted by Part 1 of Proposition M, nor would it affect the applicability of the resident placement and training program adopted by Part 3 of Proposition M.
SECTION 3. Part 2 of Proposition M (November 1986) and the Planning Code are hereby amended by adding Section 324.1 to read as follows:
SEC. 324.1. DEVELOPMENT IN HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD PHASE 2 AND CANDLESTICK POINT.
(a) For purposes of this Section 324.1, “Development” includes, without limitation, development, redevelopment, reuse and reoccupancy; and the “Subject Property” is comprised of property within the dotted lines depicted on the following maps:
(b) Notwithstanding Part 2 – Annual Limit of Proposition M (November 1986) and other provisions of any San Francisco Code, the terms “office development,” “office space,” and “additional office space,” when used in Sections 320-325 of this Planning Code, shall not include Development on the Subject Property. (c) No project authorization or allocation shall be required for any Development on the Subject Property. However, Development on the Subject Property that would require a project authorization or allocation but for this Section 324.1 shall be treated for all purposes as if it had been granted approval of a project authorization or allocation. (d) Development on the Subject Property shall not affect the annual limit or the unallocated amount referenced in Sections 320-324. The amount of office development for which project authorizations may be granted under Sections 320-324 on properties other than the Subject Property shall be determined without regard to the amount of Development on the Subject Property.
SECTION 4. Section 325 of Proposition M (1986) and the Planning Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
SEC. 325. SUNSET CLAUSE.
The limit on office development set out in Planning Code Sections 320, 321, 322, 323, and 324 and 324.1, as of October 17, 1985, as amended by the voters on November 4, 1986 and November 8, 2016, shall remain in effect until amended or repealed by the voters of San Francisco at a regularly scheduled election.
SECTION 5. Declaration of Policy.
The following declaration of policy is approved by the voters as specified in San Francisco Charter Section 14.101: It shall be the policy of the City and County of San Francisco that applications for Development on the Subject Property shall be processed and decided as quickly as feasible, in implementation of the voters’ strong desire and intent that Development on the Subject Property be expedited.
This Initiative shall not be interpreted to exempt any development on the Subject Property from paying any fees that such development would otherwise be required to pay but for the adoption of this Initiative.
This Initiative (including the definitions in new Section 321.4) shall not be interpreted to affect the application of Planning Code Sections 321-324 to any property other than the Subject Property. This Initiative shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. It is the intent of the voters that the provisions of this Initiative be interpreted or implemented in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Initiative. The title of this Initiative and the captions preceding the sections of this Initiative are for convenience of reference only. Such title and captions shall not define or limit the scope or purpose of any provision of this Initiative. The use of the terms “including,” “such as” or words of similar import when following any general term, statement or matter shall not be construed to limit such term, statement or matter to the specific items or matters, whether or not language of non-limitation is used. Rather, such terms shall be deemed to refer to all other items or matters that could reasonably fall within the broadest possible scope of such statement, term or matter. The use of the term “or” shall be construed to mean and/or.
This Initiative proposes to add text and maps to the referenced sections of Proposition M (November 1986) and the Planning Code. The new text is indicated above with bold, underlined text, and deleted text is shown in bold strikeout text. The voters intend to enact only the boundaries shown on the maps included in Section 321.4, and do not enact any other aspects of those maps. To allow the amendments to be read in context, the following exhibits are attached:
Exhibit A The text of Sections 320 through 325 of the San Francisco Planning Code, as they exist on May 1, 2016
Exhibit B The text of Proposition M (November 1986)
Exhibit C A map demonstrating the location of the Subject Property within the City & County of San Francisco. These exhibits are attached for informational purposes only, and not enacted by this Initiative. The amendments enacted by this Initiative are those set forth in Sections 3 and 4 of this Initiative. SECTION 7. Severability.
If any provision of this Initiative, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Initiative are severable. The voters declare that this Initiative, and each word, phrase, sentence, section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof, would have been adopted or passed irrespective of the fact that any other provision or provisions is found to be invalid. If any provision of this Initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity does not affect any application of this Initiative that can be given effect without the invalid application. If any portion of this Initiative is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, we, the People of the City and County of San Francisco, indicate our strong desire that: (i) the Board of Supervisors use its best efforts to sustain and provide for the re-enactment of that portion, and (ii) the Board of Supervisors implement this Initiative by taking all steps possible to cure any inadequacies or deficiencies identified by the court in a manner consistent with the express and implied intent of this Initiative, including, if necessary, taking the appropriate steps to provide for the adoption or re-enactment of any such portion in a manner consistent with the intent of this Initiative.
SECTION 8. Conflicting Ballot Measures.
In the event that this Initiative and another measure or measures relating to the development of office space on Hunters Point Shipyard Phase 2 or Candlestick Point shall appear on the same municipal election ballot, the provisions of such other measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Initiative. In the event that this Initiative shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Initiative shall prevail in their entirety and each and every provision of the other measure or measures shall be null and void in their entirety. In the event that the other measure or measures shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Initiative shall take effect to the extent permitted by law. If this Initiative is approved by the voters but superseded by law in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this Initiative shall be self-executing and given full force of law.
In accordance with the provisions of Municipal Elections Code § 380 and California Elections Code § 9217, if a majority of the voters vote in favor of the Initiative, the Initiative shall go into effect ten days after the official vote count is declared by the Board of Supervisors. SECTION 10. Amendment.
Clerical actions may be taken by staff of the City and County of San Francisco to relocate the maps enacted by this Initiative to a location other than within Section 324.1 of the Planning Code, and to note in Section 324.1 where such maps may be found, provided that doing so effects no substantive change to this Initiative. Pursuant to Municipal Elections Code § 390 and California Elections Code § 9217 no other provision of this Initiative may be amended except by a vote of the People.
EXHIBIT A (FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY)
San Francisco Planning Code §§ 320-325
When used in Sections 320, 321, 322 and 323, the following terms shall each have the meaning indicated. See also Section 102.
(b) “Approval period” shall mean the 12-month period beginning on October 17, 1985 and each subsequent 12-month period.
(c) “Approve” shall mean to approve issuance of a project authorization and shall include actions of the Planning Commission, Board of Appeals and Board of Supervisors.
(d) “Completion” shall mean the first issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or a Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy as defined in San Francisco Building Code Section 307.
(e) “Disapprove” shall mean for an appellate administrative agency or court, on review of an office development, to direct that construction shall not proceed, in whole or in part.
(f) “Office space” shall mean space within a structure intended or primarily suitable for occupancy by persons or entities which perform for their own benefit or provide to others services at that location, including but not limited to professional, banking, insurance, management, consulting, technical, sales and design, or the office functions of manufacturing and warehousing businesses, but shall exclude the following: Retail use; repair; any business characterized by the physical transfer of tangible goods to customers on the premises; wholesale shipping, receiving and storage; any facility, other than physicians’ or other individuals’ offices and uses accessory thereto, customarily used for furnishing medical services, and design showcases or any other space intended and primarily suitable for display of goods. This definition shall include all uses encompassed within Section 102 of this Code.
(g) “Office development” shall mean construction, modification or conversion of any structure or structures or portion of any structure or structures, with the effect of creating additional office space, excepting only:
(h) “Project authorization” shall mean the authorization issued by the Planning Department pursuant to Sections 321 and 322 of this Code.
(i) “Replacement office space” shall mean, with respect to a development exempted by Subsection (g)(6) of this Section, that portion of the additional office space which does not represent a net addition to the amount of office space used by the occupant’s employees in San Francisco.
(j) “Retail Use” shall mean supply of commodities on the premises including, but not limited to, stores, shops, Restaurants, Bars, eating and drinking businesses, and Retail Sales and Services uses defined in Planning Code Section 102, except for Hotels and Motels.
(k) “Preexisting office space” shall mean office space used primarily and continuously for office use and not accessory to any use other than office use for five years prior to Planning Commission approval of an office development project which office use was fully legal under the terms of San Francisco law.
(1) No office development may be approved during any approval period if the additional office space in that office development, when added to the additional office space in all other office developments previously approved during that approval period, would exceed 950,000 square feet or any lesser amount resulting from the application of Section 321.1. To the extent the total square footage allowed in any approval period is not allocated, the unallocated amount shall be carried over to the next approval period.
The additional office space described in Subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be taken into account with respect to all proposed office developments which are considered after the first site or building permit is approved for issuance for the described project. The additional office space described in Subsections (a)(2)(B) and (a)(2)(D) shall be taken into account with respect to all proposed office developments which are considered during the approval period and after the project or the added additional office space is first authorized or a conditional use or variance approved by the Planning Commission. The additional office space described in Subsection (a)(2)(C) shall be taken into account with respect to all proposed office developments which are considered during the approval period and after commencement of construction of the described structures. Modification, appeal or disapproval of a project described in this Section shall affect the amount of office space counted under this Section in the time and manner set forth for office developments in Section 321(c).
(B) Subject to Subsection (a)(1) of this Section, all proposed office developments which were approved by the Planning Commission during the approval period, but subsequently disapproved by any administrative appellate body or court, if and when said disapproval is later reversed.
(1) If an approved office development is disapproved, or if a previously unapproved office development is approved, by a court or appellate agency, the list described in Subsection (a)(3) of this Section shall be revised accordingly at the time that the period for rehearing before the appellate body in question shall have lapsed. Approval on appeal of any office development, if conditioned on disapproval of another office development which was previously approved, shall not be effective before the time for rehearing with respect to the disapproval shall have lapsed.
SEC. 321.1. ANNUAL LIMIT ADJUSTMENT.
(a) It is the intention of the people of San Francisco that the annual limit on office development be reduced to account for the square footage resulting from the excessive number of building, alteration and site permits that were issued after November 29, 1984, the date the Planning Commission amended the General Plan to include the Downtown Plan.
(b) Not later than January 1, 1987 and January 1st of each subsequent year, the Planning Department shall survey the records of the Central Permit Bureau and any other necessary records to develop a list of the square footage of all office development projects for which building, alteration or site permits were issued after November 29, 1984 that have not lapsed or otherwise been revoked, and all office development projects reapproved by the City, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco or the San Francisco Port Commission after November 29, 1984. Reapproval specifically includes any project reconsidered by any agency pursuant to a Court decision. This process shall continue until the Department is able to certify that all projects with approval dates on or before November 4, 1986 have received permits, have been abandoned or are no longer subject to litigation challenging their approval. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Planning Code or the former provisions of Subsection 320(g), all projects in excess of 24,999 square feet of additional office space shall be included in the survey. The list shall not include permits for projects authorized pursuant to the office development competition set out in Subsection 321(b) and Section 322.
(c) Not later than February 1, 1987 and February 1st of each subsequent year as set out above, the Department shall certify in writing to the Planning Commission at a public hearing the list of all projects enumerated in Subsection (b) above, including the square footage of each project and the total of all such projects.
(d) Within 30 days of receipt of the Department’s certification, the Commission shall reduce the 950,000 square foot annual limit established in Subsection 321(a)(1) by 475,000 square feet per approval period until the amount of square footage remaining on the Department’s list is reduced to zero.
(e) If the City has authorized more than 475,000 square feet as part of the office development competition set out in Subsection 321(b) and Section 322 prior to November 4, 1986, any amount exceeding 475,000 square feet shall be separately deducted from otherwise allowable square feet calculated pursuant to Subsection (d) above for the approval period and for subsequent approval periods until the total amount of square footage is reduced to zero.
SEC. 321.2. LEGISLATIVE REDUCTION OF ANNUAL LIMIT.
The Board of Supervisors is permitted to reduce the annual limit defined in Subsection 321(a)(1).
SEC. 321.3. VOTER APPROVAL OF EXEMPTIONS OF OFFICE PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
Any office development approved pursuant to a development agreement under Government Code Section 65865 or any successor Section may only be exempted from the annual limit set forth in Subsection 321(a)(1) after the exemption for such office development has been approved by the voters at a regularly scheduled election.
(d) Appeal of Project Authorization. The Planning Commission’s determination to approve or deny the issuance of a project authorization may be appealed to the Board of Appeals within 15 days of the Commission’s issuance of a dated written decision pursuant to the procedural provisions of Section 308.2 of this Code, except in those instances where a conditional use application was filed. In cases in which a conditional use application was filed, the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed only to the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 308.1 of this Code. The decision on the project authorization by the Board of Appeals or Board of Supervisors shall be the final administrative determination as to all matters relating to the approval of the office development that is the subject of the project authorization, except for matters, not considered in connection with the project authorization, which arise in connection with a subsequent building or site permit application for the development in question.
SEC. 323. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT: PREAPPLICATION PROCEDURE.
The Planning Commission may by rule permit such persons as elect to do so, to submit a preliminary application on a proposed office development before submitting any application for a project authorization. Such a preliminary application shall contain such information as the Commission may require. With respect to each proposed office development for which all the information required by the Planning Department is timely submitted to the Department, the Director of Planning or his designee shall, in writing, issue an advisory opinion to the person submitting such information, as to whether he or she at that time intends to recommend, based on the information submitted to him or her, the proposed development for denial by the Planning Commission. The advice and recommendation of the Director shall neither convey, nor foreclose, any right to proceed with a project authorization application or the development and shall constitute neither approval nor denial of the development. The Director’s recommendations under this Section shall be governed by Section 321(b) of this Code.
(a) The Board of Supervisors declares that it is the policy of the City and County of San Francisco to:
(1) Provide a quality living and working environment for residents and workers;
(2) Foster the diversified development of the City, providing a variety of economic and job opportunities;
(3) Maintain a balance between economic growth, on the one hand, and housing, transportation and public services in general, on the other, and encourage a rate of growth consistent with transportation and housing capacity;
(4) Prevent undesirable effects of development on local air quality and other environmental resources; and
(5) Encourage development projects of superior design, optimum location and other desirable characteristics.
(b) In recent years, office development in the City has increased dramatically. Office development has already affected housing, transportation and parking capacities.
(c) The City has only limited legal authority to direct or control physical development, whether for office use or not, on land covered by approved redevelopment plans or under the jurisdiction of the Port Commission.
(d) There are competing legitimate public interests which must be balanced in the planning process. Environmental concerns are of great importance, but must be balanced against the need for continued, healthy economic growth and job creation, maintenance of municipal revenues for the provision of social services, effective preservation of historic buildings and other considerations.
(e) Based on developments proposed to date, general economic conditions affecting San Francisco, and the trend in recent years of an increasing rate of office development, it is likely that excessive office development will come before City agencies for authorization and approval during the years 1985 through 1988, and possible that excessive development would continue thereafter. It is therefore appropriate to approve during the three years after adoption of this ordinance only particular, proposed developments which serve the public interest, convenience and necessity, and to similarly limit approvals for further periods to the extent excessive development might otherwise continue to occur.
(f) Sections 320 through 324 of this ordinance are intended to further the policies noted in Subsection (a) and to aid in responding to the effects noted in Subsection (b), with due regard to the factors set forth in Subsections (c) and (d), by authorizing more effective regulation of the rate, distribution, type and quality of office development in the City and County of San Francisco. Control of office development will afford additional time to analyze and meet its effects.
The limit on office development set out in Planning Code Sections 320, 321, 322, 323 and 324 as of October 17, 1985, as amended by the voters on November 4, 1986, shall remain in effect until amended or repealed by the voters of San Francisco at a regularly scheduled election.
EXHIBIT B (FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY)
Text of Proposition M (November 1986) PART 1—MASTER PLAN
Be it ordained by the people of the City and County of San Francisco that Part II, Chapter II, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (City Planning Code) is hereby amended by adding section 101.1 as follows:
SECTION 101.1. MASTER PLAN CONSISTENCY AND IMPLEMENTATION.
1. That existing neighborhood-serving retail uses be preserved and enhanced and future opportunities for resident employment in and ownership of such businesses enhanced;
7. That landmarks and historic buildings be preserved; and,
PART 2—ANNUAL LIMIT
Be it ordained by the people of the .City and County of San Francisco that Part II, Chapter II, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (City Planning Code) is hereby amended as follows:
Subsections 320(b) and 320(g)(1) are amended as follows:
SECTION 320. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT: DEFINITIONS.
(b) “Approval period” shall mean the twelve month period beginning on October 17, 1985 and each subsequent twelve month period.
1. Development which will result in less than 25,000 square feet of additional office space.
Subsection 320(g)(5) is deleted and the existing Subsections renumbered.
Subsection 320(k) is added as follows:
(k) “Preexisting office space” shall mean office space used primarily and continuously for office use and not accessory to any use other than office use for five (5) years prior to Planning Commission approval of an office development project which office use was fully legal under the terms of San Francisco law.
Subsection 321(a)(1) is amended as follows:
SECTION 321. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT: ANNUAL LIMIT.
1. No office development may be approved during any approval period if the additional office space in that office development, when added to the additional office space in all other office developments previously approved during that approval period, would exceed 950,000 square feet or any lesser amount resulting from the application of Section 321.1. To the extent the total square footage allowed in any approval period is not allocated, the unallocated amount shall be carried over to the next approval period.
A new Subsection 321(b)(4) is added as follows and existing subsections renumbered:
Section 321.1 is added as follows:
SECTION 321.1. ANNUAL LIMIT ADJUSTMENT.
(a) It is the intention of the people of San Francisco that the annual limit on office development be reduced to account for the square footage resulting from the excessive number of building, alteration and site permits that were issued after November 29, 1984, the date the City Planning Commission amended the Master Plan to include the Downtown Plan.
(b) Not later than January 1, 1987 and January 1 of each subsequent year the Department of City Planning shall survey the records of the Central Permit Bureau and any other necessary records to develop a list of the square footage of all office development projects for which building, alteration or site permits were issued after November 29, 1984 that have not lapsed or otherwise been revoked, and all office development projects reapproved by the City, the Redevelopment Agency or the San Francisco Port Commission after November 29, 1984. Reapproval specifically includes any project reconsidered by any agency pursuant to a Court decision. This process shall continue until the Department is able to certify that all projects with approval dates on or before November 4, 1986 have received permits, have been abandoned or are no longer subject to litigation challenging their approval. Notwithstanding any other provision of the City Planning Code or the former provisions of Subsection 320(g), all projects in excess of 24,999 square feet of additional office space shall be included in the survey. The list shall not include permits for projects authorized pursuant to the office development competition set out in Subsection 321(b) and Section 322.
(c) Not later than February 1, 1987, and February 1 of each subsequent year as set out above, the Department shall certify in writing to the City Planning Commission at a public hearing the list of all projects enumerated in subsection (b) above, including the square footage of each project and the total of all such projects.
(e) If the City has authorized more than 475,000 square feet as part of the office, development competition set out in Subsection 321(b) and Section 322 prior to November 4, 1986, any amount exceeding 475,000 square feet shall be separately deducted from otherwise allowable square feet calculated pursuant to subsection (d) above for the approval period and for subsequent approval periods until the total amount of square footage is reduced to zero.
Section 321.2 is added as follows:
SECTION 321.2. LEGISLATIVE REDUCTION OF ANNUAL LIMIT.
(g) The Board of Supervisors is permitted to reduce the annual limit defined in Subsection 321(a)(1).
Section 321.3 is added as follows:
SECTION 321.3. VOTER APPROVAL OF EXEMPTION OF OFFICE PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
Section 325 is amended as follows:
SECTION 325. SUNSET CLAUSE.
Be it ordained by the people of the City and County of San Francisco that Part II, Chapter II, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (City Planning Code) is hereby amended as follows:
Subsection 164(a) is amended as follows: SECTION 164. SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENT PLACEMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM.
(a) The City has determined in its certification of the Downtown Plan Environmental Impact Report and in its findings and studies leading to the adoption of Section 313 of the Planning Code that San Francisco and regional traffic and transit problems will become more intolerable as the number of non-resident employees increases in San Francisco as a result of new office development. In order to mitigate those adverse traffic and transit impacts, while protecting the City’s residential areas from unwanted increases in density, the people determine that a policy of maximizing resident employment training and placement opportunities is needed.
Subsections 164(d) and (e) are added as follows:
(d) In order to ensure, that the maximum number of San Francisco residents are trained and placed in employment opportunities in our City, the Board of Supervisors shall hold public hearings and not later than January 1, 1988 the City shall adopt legislation to establish a program which will coordinate the job training and placement efforts of the San Francisco Unified School District, the San Francisco Community College District, community-based non-profit employment and training programs, and other agencies from the public and private sectors, to assure maximum use of existing federal, state and local training and placement programs, and to develop such additional training and placement programs as deemed necessary.
(e) Should the Board of Supervisors determine that additional funds are needed for programs established pursuant to subsection (d) above, it shall consider the adoption of a San Francisco Resident Training and Placement Fee of not less than $1.50 per square foot as a condition of the approval of any application for an office development project proposing the net addition of 50,000 or more gross square feet of office space.
PART 4 —SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
If any part of this initiative is held invalid by a court of law, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of the initiative or applications which can be given effect without the invalid part or• application hereof and to this end the sections of this initiative are separable.