A

Affordable Housing Bonds

SAN FRANCISCO AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS. To construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate housing, including workforce housing and senior housing, that will be affordable to households ranging from extremely low-income to moderate-income households; shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $300,000,000 in general obligation bonds, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits, with a duration of up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.0057/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average annual revenues of $25,000,000?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: 

The City provides funding to acquire, build or rehabilitate affordable housing to meet the needs of San Francisco residents, including housing that is affordable for extremely low- to moderate-income households. The City’s funding for affordable housing comes from sources, including property taxes, hotel taxes and developer fees. 

The City also issues general obligation bonds approved by the voters. The City sometimes makes additional funding available from other public and private sources.

State law requires San Francisco to build or allow to be built 46,598 very low- to moderate-income housing units by 2031, or face penalties. The state’s financial contribution is not enough to meet this requirement, so the City must create its own funding.

The Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee audits the expenditure of these bond proceeds.

The Proposal: 

Proposition A is an ordinance that would allow the City to borrow up to $300 million by issuing general obligation bonds. The City would use:

  • Up to $240 million to construct, develop, acquire or rehabilitate new rental housing, including senior housing and workforce housing, for extremely low-income, very low-income and lower-income households;
  • Up to $30 million to construct, develop, acquire or rehabilitate existing housing to preserve it as affordable for lower-income households and moderate-income households; and
  • Up to $30 million to construct, develop, acquire or rehabilitate housing for extremely low-income, very low-income and/or lower-income households who need safe and stable housing and are experiencing street violence, domestic violence and abuse, sexual abuse and assault, human trafficking or other trauma relating to homelessness.

City policy is to limit the amount of money it borrows by issuing new bonds only as prior bonds are paid off. An increase in the property tax would be allowed if needed. Landlords would be permitted to pass through up to 50% of any resulting property tax increase to tenants.

Proposition A also would require the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee to audit the spending of bond funds.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want the City to issue $300 million in general obligation bonds to construct, develop, acquire or rehabilitate affordable housing in San Francisco.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want the City to issue these bonds.

Controller's Statement on "A"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition A:

Should the proposed $300 million in bonds be authorized and sold under current assumptions, the approximate costs will be as follows:

a)   In Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026, following issuance of the first series of bonds, the best estimate of the tax required to fund this bond issue would result in a property tax rate of $0.0041 per $100 ($4.10 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.

b)   In FY 2027-2028, following issuance of the last series of bonds, the best estimate of the tax required to fund this bond issue would result in a property tax rate of $0.0079 per $100 ($7.90 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.

c)   The best estimate of the average tax rate for these bonds from FY 2025-2026 through FY 2046-2047 is $0.0057 per $100 ($5.70 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.

d)   Based on these estimates, the highest estimated annual property tax cost for these bonds for the owner of a home with an assessed value of $700,000 would be approximately $55.00.

The best estimate of total debt service, including principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all proposed $300 million in bonds are issued and sold, would be approximately $544.5 million. These estimates are based on projections only, which are not binding upon the City. Projections and estimates may vary due to the timing of bond sales, the amount of bonds sold at each sale, and actual assessed valuation over the term of repayment of the bonds. Hence, the actual tax rate and the years in which such rates are applicable may vary from those estimated above. The City’s current non-binding debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors.

How "A" Got on the Ballot

On November 14, 2023, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition A on the ballot. The Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Chan, Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton.

No: None.

This measure requires 66 2/3% affirmative votes to pass.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

YES ON A: SAN FRANCISCO NEEDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Housing affordability is one of the most pressing challenges facing San Francisco today. Wages have not kept up with the cost of housing and we are at risk of losing the diverse community of firefighters, teachers, nurses, veterans, families, and seniors who make San Francisco a special place to live.

That's why we've come together to champion Proposition A—a critical solution to our housing affordability crisis. Proposition A will:

  • Provide essential affordable housing for working parents and families so they can continue to live and work in San Francisco.
  • Secure housing for seniors on fixed incomes who are having to choose between paying for housing and purchasing groceries and necessities.
  • Provide affordable housing for first responders so they can both live and work in the city and be available if an earthquake or other disaster strikes.
  • Help San Francisco meet our State RHNA housing goals which require us to approve 46,000 affordable housing units in the next eight years or lose state funding.
  • Implement stringent fiscal controls and robust oversight including annual independent audits and review of all spending to ensure that funds are used as promised.
  • Earn matching funds from state and federal affordable housing programs with a goal of doubling our investment for housing.
  • Not increase property tax rates, so that neither homeowners or renters will see an increase in housing costs as a result of the bond.

On March 5th, let's take a decisive step. Join us and vote Yes on Prop A to secure affordable housing for San Francisco's future.

Mayor London Breed

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

San Francisco Labor Council

Council of Community Housing Organizations

San Francisco Council of District Merchants Associations

SPUR

Senior and Disability Action

United Educators of San Francisco

San Francisco Women's Political Committee

Mission Housing Development Corporation

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! Visit: http://bigfraud.com 

During the pandemic. 65,000 people left San Francisco—7.7% of the population—the worst decline in five generations, hollowing-out our urban center. Why build 82,000 new units regardless? 

Vote NO on Proposition A to send a message: fight the state mandates. 

Already approved Bonds fully fund "Affordable Housing" for 5 more years. 

Interest rates have skyrocketed. The SF Controller now estimates Proposition A will cost $545 million, not $300 million. 

Landlords can pass 50% of higher property taxes on to Renters. 

The Planning Department admits that Proposition A will demolish rent-controlled units to make room for "Affordable Housing." 

This is a lottery system. The luck of the draw is not fairness. 

The political tide has turned, evaporating state and federal money. Don't be fooled. "Grants" from above won't prevent steep property taxes increases. 

Vote NO on Proposition A 

Larry S. Marso, Esq. 

A Nob Hill resident, Mr. Marso is a technology executive, M&A advisor, attorney, and syndicated columnist. As a delegate of the San Francisco Republican County Central Committee, he represents voters in Assembly District 17. In 2020, Mr. Marso was a candidate for Chair of the SFGOP, a presidential campaign consultant, and a nationally recognized expert on electronic voting systems.

Vote NO on Proposition A 

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! Visit: http://bigfraud.com 

Larry S. Marso

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! Visit: http://bigfraud.com 

The Mayor and Board of Supervisors have embraced insane state mandates to build 82,000 new San Francisco homes over 5 years. Their plan changes the character of every neighborhood, buldozes the West Side, and brings poverty, drugs, crime and homelessness to a street corner near you. 

Vote NO on Proposition A to stop it. 

For a decade, San Francisco taxpayers poured $1.5 billion into "affordable housing" schemes, including a $600 million bond (2019) and a $245 million bond (2020). Why another $300 million bond now? The city's borrowing capacity is nearly exhausted. Big trouble ahead for infrastructure bonds: Earthquake Safety, Healthcare and Waterfront Safety. 

The Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development ended 2022 with $537 million in excess funds. It doesn't need the money. 

Not a penny of "affordable housing" programs benefit existing home owners and renters. Proposition A's radical agenda is state ownership and control of the real estate market, the end of vacancy decontrol ("Costa Hawkins"), dismantling Proposition 13 and dramatically higher property taxes. 

I led the campaign against the 2022 MUNI bond, a victory for taxpayers. We cut future property taxes by $4,000 per homeowner. Let's do it again. 

Larry S. Marso, Esq. 

A Nob Hill resident, Mr. Marso is a technology executive, M&A advisor, attorney, and syndicated columnist. As a delegate of the San Francisco Republican County Central Committee, he represents voters in Assembly District 17. In 2020, Mr. Marso was a candidate for Chair of the SFGOP, a presidential campaign consultant, and a nationally recognized expert on electronic voting systems. 

Vote NO on Proposition A 

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! Visit: http://bigfraud.com 

Larry S. Marso

YES ON A: A REAL SOLUTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPORTED BY A UNITED SAN FRANCISCO 

Yes on A is supported by a diverse coalition from every corner of San Francisco: nonprofit affordable housing groups, educators, labor, community organizations, pro-housing advocates, and advocates for seniors, women and renters. 

Here's why: 

  • Creates 1,500 new affordable homes for struggling San Franciscans
  • Does not increase property tax rates, so neither homeowners or renters will see an increase in housing costs
  • Requires annual independent audits and review of all spending by a citizen committee
  • Secures housing for seniors on fixed incomes
  • Provides affordable housing for first responders
  • Creates women-focused affordable housing for survivors of domestic abuse and assault
  • Helps San Francisco meet our State RHNA housing goals, 46,000 affordable housing units in the next eight years or lose state funding
  • Earns matching funds from state and federal affordable housing programs with a goal of doubling our investment for housing

Please join our united coalition working together for solutions to San Francisco's housing crisis. Vote YES on A! 

Mayor London Breed 

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin 

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee 

San Francisco Labor Council 

Council of Community Housing Organizations 

San Francisco Council of District Merchants Associations 

SPUR 

Senior and Disability Action 

United Educators of San Francisco 

San Francisco Women's Political Committee 

Mission Housing Development Corporation

1

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: ADVANCING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Affordable housing bonds in 2015 and 2019 marked crucial steps in addressing San Francisco's housing crisis, providing over 5,000 homes for teachers, veterans, seniors, and low-income working families. We can't stop now.

Yes on A is the next essential move. This proposition will:

  • Extend affordable housing opportunities to thousands more San Francisco families.
  • Provide the vital resources to maintain progress in moving along the over 10,000 affordable housing units in the construction pipeline in San Francisco
  • Earn matching funds from state and federal affordable housing programs with a goal of doubling our investment for housing.

The affordable housing crisis demands urgency. On March 5th, your vote for Yes on A is a vote to secure affordable housing for our community's future.

Council of Community Housing Organizations

Bill Sorro Housing Program (BiSHOP)

Chinatown Community Development Center

Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council

Mercy Housing California

Mission Housing Development Corporation

Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH)

Richmond District Democratic Club

San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund

San Francisco Housing Development Corporation

San Francisco Human Services Network

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

2

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRATS UNITE: YES ON A FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Affordable housing is a core value of the Democratic Party at the local, state, and national level and a critical component of our commitment to a more equitable and inclusive San Francisco.

Proposition A is so important to San Francisco Democrats. Here is what the proposition will provide:

  • Affordable Housing for Local Workers
  • San Francisco's housing market has reached staggering heights, with the annual income needed to purchase an average-priced home exceeding one million dollars. This is far beyond what typical workers, including nurses, teachers, and essential workers, can afford. Proposition A is our opportunity to address this crisis and ensure that local workers can continue to call San Francisco home.
  • Support for Working Families and Seniors
  • We believe that working parents and seniors should not only afford housing but also have enough money for groceries and necessities. Unfortunately, skyrocketing rents have made this impossible for too many in our community. Proposition A is a step toward making San Francisco a place where all people can afford to live.
  • Accountability to taxpayers
  • Yes on A follows San Francisco's long-standing policy of not increasing property tax rates. Additionally, it ensures strict accountability, with independent annual financial audits, citizen oversight committee reviews, and a clear prohibition on using Yes on A funding for administrators' salaries or pensions.

As Democrats, we stand united in our support for Proposition A. On March 5th, join us in voting Yes on Proposition A. It's a commitment to affordable housing and a brighter future for our city.

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

3

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: HELP SENIORS STRUGGLING ON FIXED INCOMES

San Francisco’s senior citizens have given their best years to our city, and now, in their golden years, they deserve dignity, security, and affordability in their housing.

The challenges are real. Seniors living on fixed incomes are struggling to keep pace with rising housing costs. For many low-income seniors, the situation is dire, with some spending 75% or more of their monthly, fixed income on rent alone. It's a heartbreaking reality, forcing our seniors to make impossible choices between housing, food, and other necessities.

Here are some things that a Yes on A vote will provide:

  • Secure housing for seniors on fixed incomes who are having to choose between paying for housing and purchasing groceries and necessities.
  • Not increase property tax rates, so that neither homeowners or renters will see an increase in housing costs as a result of the bond.
  • Implement stringent fiscal controls and robust oversight including annual independent audits and review of all spending to ensure that funds are used as promised.

In short, this proposition will provide affordable housing options for seniors that they desperately need. It's a beacon of hope in a city where housing costs have spiraled out of control. As senior advocacy organizations, we stand united in our support for Proposition A.

Senior and Disability Action

Anni Chung, President & CEO, Self-Help for the Elderly*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

4

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: A SOLUTION TO SOARING RENTS

The struggle is real, and we get it. Skyrocketing rents have made it increasingly impossible to afford housing while keeping up with the rising costs of daily life. Many of us, including hardworking parents and seniors, are forced to make the impossible choice between putting a roof over our heads or putting food on the table.

But there's hope on the horizon. Yes on A will:

  • Build thousands of truly affordable homes, helping to reverse gentrification and displacement that are tearing communities from their historic neighborhoods.
  • Dedicate $30 million for creating housing for women and women-identified people who experience sexual assault or violence on city streets or in coed shelters and need housing to stabilize safely without fear of further abuse.
  • Help our communities of color and LGBTQ+ citizens who have been badly hurt by the city’s skyrocketing cost of housing. This measure will provide housing to support those most impacted by the rising cost of living, to ensure they can live and thrive in San Francisco.

On March 5th, join us in taking a stand. Vote Yes on A!

Affordable Housing Alliance

Community Tenants Association

Eviction Defense Collaborative

Housing Rights Committee, Inc

North Beach Tenants Committee

People Organized to Demand Economic and Environmental Rights (PODER)

Public Housing Tenant Association (PHTA)

San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition 

San Francisco Tenants Union

South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN)

Tenants and Owners Development Corporation (TODCO)

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

5

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: HOUSING SOLUTIONS FOR EDUCATORS AND HOMELESS YOUTH

As educators, we witness the struggles of working families with children every day. The soaring cost of housing in San Francisco has created a heartbreaking reality: many of our students and their families are grappling with homelessness, and it's impacting their ability to learn and thrive.

Here are the facts: San Francisco has an estimated 7,754 homeless individuals, with 1,073 of them being homeless youth. Shockingly, 4% of San Francisco public school students, totaling over 2,300 individual students, are experiencing homelessness.

To address these problems, educators are supporting Yes on A. This critical measure tackles the housing crisis head-on, with a focus on helping educators, families, and homeless youth.

Proposition A provides:

  • Essential affordable housing for working parents and families so they can continue to live and work in San Francisco
  • No increase in property tax rates, so that neither homeowners or renters will see an increase in housing costs as a result of the bond
  • Help for San Francisco to meet our State RHNA housing goals which require us to approve 46,000 affordable housing units in the next eight years for more San Francisco children and families

Our mission as educators is to empower and uplift the next generation. Proposition A aligns perfectly with this mission, offering hope and a path toward brighter futures for our students and their families.

On March 5th, stand with us and vote Yes on Proposition A. Let's make housing solutions for educators, working families, and homeless youth a reality in San Francisco.

United Educators of San Francisco

Larkin Street Youth Services

Young Community Developers

Alan Wong, President, City College Board of Trustees

Susan Solomon, City College Board of Trustees 

Shanell Williams, City College Board of Trustees

Alida Fisher, Commissioner, San Francisco Board of Education

Jenny Lam, Commissioner, San Francisco Board of Education

Lisa Weissman-Ward, Commissioner, San Francisco Board of Education

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

6

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY, INDEPENDENT AUDITS, AND NO TAX RAISES

We are supporting Proposition A not only because it funds essential affordable housing for residents, but also because the measure includes strict accountability rules and oversight to ensure the funds we approve are spent on time and on budget.

Proposition A:

  • Is governed by San Francisco’s Capital Plan, which has a solid track record of fiscal accountability and proven results
  • Requires annual independent audits and review of all spending required, ensuring that funds are used as promised and the City’s Capital Plan continues to deliver on the projects it outlines.

As part of the City’s Capital Plan, property tax rates will NOT increase under Proposition A. New bonds are only issued as previously approved bond funds are retired, meaning our tax rates stay the same, without any increase. That’s the kind of fiscal responsibility we support.

Join us in support and vote yes on Proposition A!

SPUR

Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco

Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

7

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

According to the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women, 70% of domestic violence victims are women.

There is a significant need for safe housing for survivors of domestic and family violence in San Francisco, as historically less than 5% of shelter and supportive housing has been directed to women-only spaces.

Proposition A:

  • Specifically directs funding for the preservation and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing for victims and survivors of trafficking and domestic violence, helping those who are escaping abuse to recover and stabilize in a safe, secure and peaceful environment.

Proposition A finally begins to address the affordable housing needs of this community, bringing women's issues into the light and giving the community hope that they are valued and deserving of safe housing.

Join us in supporting Proposition A for safe, affordable housing for survivors of domestic abuse. Vote Yes on Proposition A!

San Francisco Women's Political Committee

Women’s Housing Coalition

San Francisco Safehouse 

Community Forward SF

Roma P. Guy, Former Health Commissioner

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

8

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: PROPOSITION A HELPS MEET STATE HOUSING GOALS AND KEEP STATE FUNDING

San Francisco is required by the State to approve 46,000 affordable housing units in the next eight years. If we don’t meet that goal we will lose state funding for essential city services including funding for transportation and affordable housing.

Proposition A:

  • Is essential to helping construct affordable housing and help us meet those strict housing production requirements and avoid harsh penalties.
  • Qualifies our city to earn matching funds from state and federal affordable housing programs with a goal of doubling our investment for housing, helping us reach our affordable housing requirements even faster.
  • Protects the state funding we depend on for transportation and affordable housing, while helping us achieve our state mandated affordable housing goals.
  • Is needed now more than ever as market rate housing, which typically funds much of our affordable housing production, is at a standstill due to high interest rates and construction costs.

Join us in support and vote yes on Proposition A!

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi

Senator Scott Wiener

California State Treasurer Fiona Ma

California State Controller Malia Cohen

Assemblymember Phil Ting

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

9

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

SAN FRANCISCO’S ELECTED LEADERS ARE UNITED: YES ON A

We are a diverse City with diverse opinions on diverse issues. But we all wholeheartedly support Proposition A to fund and build more affordable housing, without raising anyone’s taxes.

Proposition A is the critical next step in San Francisco’s Capital Plan that has already built thousands of affordable housing units thanks to past housing bonds, delivered on time and on budget.

Proposition A:

  • An essential piece of our plan to meet state mandated affordable housing goals of 46,000 units in the next eight years, or risk losing transportation and housing funding.
  • Requires annual independent audits and review of all spending to ensure that funds are used as promised.
  • Funding will be matched with state and federal affordable housing dollars, doubling our investment in housing.
  • Does not increase property tax rates. No one will see an increase in taxes as a result of Proposition A.

We are working together in support of Proposition A. Join us and let’s move our city forward!

Mayor London Breed

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

Assessor Joaquín Torres

San Francisco Public Defender Manohar Raju

Supervisor Connie Chan

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Myrna Melgar 

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Ahsha Safaí

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Shamann Walton

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

10

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: HOUSING EQUITY FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S AFRICAN AMERICAN RESIDENTS

Our community has faced housing challenges for far too long. San Francisco's African Americans have been disproportionately affected by the housing crisis, and it's time for change. Proposition A provides a ray of hope, not just for us but for the entire city.

Here are the facts:

  • African Americans have the lowest rate of homeownership in San Francisco, at just 31%. Many are burdened by the cost of homeownership, with some spending more than 30% or even 50% of their income on housing.
  • African Americans make up 37% of the City's unhoused population, despite comprising only 6% of the city's overall population.
  • Our community has suffered displacement for decades, consistently declining in every census count since 1970. Discriminatory practices among landlords and property managers have made it even harder, especially for Black women with children, who are often denied housing opportunities.

As African American leaders, we stand united in our support for Proposition A. On March 5th, let's take a stand for housing justice and vote Yes on Proposition A.

California State Controller Malia Cohen

Mayor London Breed

Supervisor Shamann Walton

San Francisco Democratic Party Chair Honey Mahogany

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair Leah LaCroix

City College Trustee Shanell Williams

Former Supervisor Sophie Maxwell

Reverend Amos Brown

Reverend James McCray, Tabernacle Community Development Corporation (TCDC)

Linda Richardson, VP, Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA)*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

11

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: HOUSING SOLUTIONS FOR THE ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITY

Our community has been an integral part of San Francisco's rich tapestry, contributing to the city's vibrancy and cultural diversity for generations. However, many members of our Asian American community are facing significant challenges due to the affordable housing crisis. Voting Yes on A will help.

Proposition A will provide:

  • Housing equity for all. The annual income needed to purchase an average-priced home in San Francisco exceeds one million dollars. Yes on A will provide thousands of truly affordable housing opportunities.
  • Greater public safety. San Francisco's vulnerability to earthquakes and natural disasters requires us to have first responders who both live and work in the city. Yes on A provides affordable housing to ensure that our first responders are always available close to home.
  • Accountability and Transparency. Proposition A is subject to strict accountability requirements, including independent annual financial audits and citizen oversight committee reviews. It ensures that funds are used exclusively for housing projects, with no funding directed to administrators' salaries or pensions.
  • A Commitment to No Tax Increase. Importantly, Proposition A aligns with the city's long-standing policy of not increasing property tax rates. The measure has been carefully structured to ensure that it won't burden our community with higher taxes.

On March 5th, let's come together and vote Yes on A!

Assemblymember Phil Ting

California State Treasurer Fiona Ma

Supervisor Connie Chan

Board of Education Commissioner Jenny Lam

Democratic Party Vice Chair Li Miao Lovett

DCCC Member Zhihan Zou

Former Supervisor Jane Kim

Former Supervisor Gordan Mar

Former Supervisor Norman Yee

Entertainment Commissioner Cyn Wang

Former MTA Board Director Sharon Lai

Marjan Philhour, Co-founder, Balboa Village Merchants Association

Anni Chung, President & CEO, Self-Help for the Elderly*

Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC)

Rose Pak Democratic Club

Tenderloin Chinese Rights Association

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

12

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

SMALL BUSINESSES SUPPORT: YES ON A

Proposition A is a smart, responsible measure that will deliver needed affordable housing in a fiscally responsible way, with strict oversight and accountability over how funds are spent.

We are small business owners that power our city’s economic engine, we have to be fiscally responsible and make sound business decisions to keep our businesses open and serving the public.

With an eye toward fiscal prudence, we’ve taken a hard look at Proposition A and are strongly supporting this measure that is essential in the city’s effort to build more affordable housing.

  • Proposition A is subject to strict accountability requirements, including independent annual financial audits and citizen oversight committee reviews. Proposition A ensures that funds will be spent as directed on housing, not spent on administrative overhead.
  • Proposition A delivers desperately needed affordable housing without raising property tax rates. As business owners, we know firsthand that now is not the time to raise taxes.

Proposition A delivers affordable housing in a fiscally responsible manner. That’s a smart business proposal we can support.

Former Small Business Commission President Sharky Laguana

San Francisco Council of District Merchants Associations

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

Small Business Forward

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

13

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES IN MY BACKYARD: YES ON A!

San Franciscans are suffering the effects of not building enough housing for the people who want to live in our amazing city, and for those who have lived here for generations but who are being priced out due to the high cost of scarce housing.

As a result of that failure to build more housing, San Francisco is now required by the State to approve 46,000 affordable housing units in the next eight years. If we don’t approve those units, we risk losing essential state funding for our transportation system and affordable housing.

Proposition A:

  • Will help us meet those ambitious and needed affordable housing goals.
  • Makes fiscal sense because we can leverage state and federal matching funds to help build more units.
  • Makes San Francisco more affordable for those struggling to get by and prevents more people from being priced out and losing their home, potentially ending up on the street.
  • Does NOT raise taxes.

Join us in Supporting Proposition A for more housing. Vote Yes on Proposition A!

GrowSF

Grow the Richmond

Housing Action Coalition

Northern Neighbors

SF YIMBY

Urban Environmentalists

YIMBY Action

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

14

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S WORKING FAMILIES

The struggle for San Francisco's working families to find affordable housing has reached a breaking point. Wages have failed to keep pace with the soaring cost of housing, putting local workers in an untenable position.

The reality is stark: the annual income needed to buy an average-priced home in San Francisco is over a million dollars, far beyond the reach of typical workers, including essential professionals like nurses and teachers.

Proposition A will:

  • Provide essential affordable housing for working parents and families so they can continue to live and work in San Francisco.
  • Implement stringent fiscal controls and robust oversight including annual independent audits and review of all spending to ensure that funds are used as promised.
  • Not increase property tax rates, so that neither homeowners or renters will see an increase in housing costs as a result of the bond.

Yes on A is the lifeline that our working families desperately need. It's a tangible commitment to ensure that local workers can not only afford to live in San Francisco but also continue to contribute to our vibrant community.

San Francisco unions stand united in support of Prop A. We see firsthand the daily struggles of working families, and we recognize that this measure represents a beacon of hope for a brighter future. Proposition A is an opportunity to take decisive action, offering a path towards affordable housing that is long overdue.

Let's stand together to secure affordable housing for San Francisco's working families and ensure that they can call our city home for generations to come. Vote Yes on Prop A!

San Francisco Labor Council

Service Employees International Union 1021

California Working Families Party

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

15

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: SUPPORTING SAN FRANCISCO'S LATINO COMMUNITY THROUGH AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Our Latino community is essential to the heart and soul of San Francisco but we are facing severe housing challenges. While overall homelessness decreased in San Francisco during the pandemic, there was a 55% increase in the number of Latinos who are homeless.

We have witnessed extreme gentrification and displacement of our community, with over 10,000 Latino residents forced out of the Mission District since 1990.

That’s why Yes on A is crucial for our Latino community. Prop A will:

  • Provide funding to build, develop, acquire, or rehabilitate affordable housing, offering stability to Latino families and our community.
  • Not increase taxes, ensuring that neither renters nor homeowners will face higher housing costs.

As Latino leaders and organizations, we are united in our support for Proposition A. On March 5th, let's come together and vote Yes on A!

Latino Task Force

Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA)

Assessor Joaquín Torres

Former Supervisor John Avalos

San Francisco Democratic Party Corresponding Secretary Anabel Ibáñez

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

16

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: EMPOWERING SAN FRANCISCO’S LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY THROUGH HOUSING

Our LGBTQ+ community is at the heart of what makes San Francisco vibrant and inclusive. But we face unique challenges, particularly when it comes to housing. Wages have not kept up with housing costs, causing extreme gentrification and displacement in our community.

In the last homeless youth point-in-time count in 2022, a staggering 38% of surveyed homeless youth identify as LGBTQ+. These statistics are a stark reminder of the urgent need for housing solutions tailored to our community's specific challenges.

Proposition A will:

  • Provide essential housing for the most at-risk populations and communities, ensuring safe housing for LGBTQ+ youth and adults
  • Earn matching funds from state and federal affordable housing programs, providing an onramp to more affordable housing development in the future
  • Not increase property tax rates, so neither renters nor owners will see an increase in housing costs as a result of the bond

As LGBTQ+ organizations and elected officials, we're uniting behind Yes on A as a crucial step toward empowerment. On March 5th, let's come together and vote Yes on A.

Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club

Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

Senator Scott Wiener

Former Senator Mark Leno

Former Assemblymember Tom Ammiano

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

BART Director Bevan Dufty

Luis Zamora, Co-Chair, California Democratic Party LGBTQ+ Caucus

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

17

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

YES ON A: BUILD AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR ALL

Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco works together with families, local communities, volunteers and partners to ensure more people are able to live in affordable and safe homes.

We are supporting Prop A because it helps address the housing shortage we are facing in San Francisco, a shortage that creates instability for individuals and families who want to make San Francisco their home, but are faced with an average home price greater than one million dollars.

Prop A supports victims of domestic violence by dedicating funds to women-only housing. 1 in 3 unhoused women experience sexual assault or violence on city streets or in coed shelter and need secure, safe housing to protect from further abuse.

Prop A helps San Francisco meet our state mandated housing goals which require us to approve 46,000 affordable housing units in the next eight years or lose state funding for additional affordable housing and transportation.

Prop A does not raise taxes, and includes strict accountability requirements, with independent annual financial audits and citizen oversight.

Proposition A is an important element in the City’s larger effort to build affordable homes for all, and we urge you to support this critical measure.

Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc., 3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition A

No paid arguments against proposition submitted.

Ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, March 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting to San Francisco voters a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness of not-to-exceed $300,000,000, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits, to finance the construction, development, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation of rental affordable housing, including workforce housing and senior housing, for households ranging from extremely low-income to moderate-income households; and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of the resulting property tax increase, if any, to residential tenants under Administrative Code Chapter 37; providing for the levy and collection of taxes to pay both principal and interest on such Bonds; incorporating the provisions of the Administrative Code relating to the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee’s review of Affordable Housing Bond expenditures; setting certain procedures and requirements for the election; affirming a determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and finding that the proposed Bond is consistent with the General Plan, and with the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

 

            NOTE:      Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics font.

Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics font.

Board amendment additions are in double-underlined font.

Board amendment deletions are in strikethrough font.

Asterisks (*   *   *   *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code 
subsections or parts of tables. Do NOT delete this NOTE: area.

 

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:

Section 1.      Findings.

A.        The General Plan 2022 Housing Element (“2022 Housing Element”) of the City and County of San Francisco (“City”) details the City’s goals, objectives, and corresponding policies and programs to meet the housing needs of all San Francisco residents, with a focus on racial and social equity. This includes the objective to substantially expand the amount of affordable housing for extremely low- to moderate-income households and expand housing opportunities for middle-income households (as defined in Section 3 below) (2022 Housing Element, Objectives 4.A and 4.B), as well as the requirement for San Francisco to plan for and support the production of 46,598 affordable housing units over the next eight years as mandated by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan.

B.        The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be “affordable” when a household spends 30 percent or less of their income on housing costs, including rent and utilities. In 2022, the median rent for a 2-bedroom apartment was $3,800, affordable to a household earning $137,000; less than 40 percent of San Francisco households earn this income. (2022 Housing Element, Goal 4). 

C.        The need for affordable housing was severely exacerbated during the 
COVID-19 pandemic, when the City’s unemployment rate rose to 13 percent in April 2020 from 2.2 percent in February 2020. As a result, the City invested in policies and programs to support residents at risk of eviction, foreclosure, and displacement due to loss of income related to the pandemic. These investments included (i) establishment of the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, (ii) expansion of the Homeowner Emergency Loan Program, and (iii) issuance of a moratorium on evictions due to nonpayment of rent. 

D.        While these policies and programs provided temporary support, overwhelming demand far exceeded and continues to exceed the City’s available resources. The City’s economy is still recovering from the pandemic, and the impacts of the pandemic will have lasting effects, particularly for families and individuals that were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic (2022 Housing Element, Figure 33).

E.        The City’s ability to produce the affordable rental housing it needs has been significantly impacted by the limited availability of state and federal resources. From 2018 to 2022, for every $1 of local funding invested by the City to create affordable housing, the City’s affordable housing projects received $2 in funding from state and federal sources. As detailed in the 2024 Affordable Housing Bond Report, the economic environment for affordable housing has changed significantly in recent years, with state affordable housing funding programs becoming more competitive and severely oversubscribed, including the state’s allocation of volume cap for tax-exempt housing revenue bonds.

F.         The City contributes significant resources to ensure project delivery. San Francisco voters have approved measures to create local funds dedicated to the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing, including the 2012 Housing Trust Fund and affordable housing general obligation bonds in 2015 and 2019. The City’s local funds from the 2015 and 2019 bonds are projected to be exhausted by 2028 (2024 Affordable Housing Bond Report). Additional sources of affordable housing funds from the City’s impact fees have been decreasing due to the economic environment, such as the Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee (Planning Code, Sec. 413), the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program (Planning Code, Sec. 415), various development agreements, and other impact fees. Funding from such sources decreased by 95 percent between Fiscal Year 2019-2020 and Fiscal Year 2021-2022. Moreover, the Office of the Controller’s FY 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 Revenue Letter projects only modest tax revenue growth over the coming years, severely limiting the amount of resources the City will have to fund the development of affordable housing. 

G.        The City’s economic future and ongoing recovery will ultimately depend on its ability to produce and preserve enough affordable housing to ensure the City’s economically diverse households can equitably access housing and remain stably housed in San Francisco. Failure to meet this need will result in the displacement of more households to areas with more affordable housing. This displacement could result in (i) greater disparity between above moderate-income and lower-income households in the City with little change to the City’s median income levels as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau; and (ii) long commutes, road congestion, and environmental harm as people seek affordable housing at greater distances from where they work. 

H.        The City places high importance on job quality and training opportunities in the local construction industry. 

I.          The City and past recipients of City funding have worked with local stakeholders to successfully implement the City’s longstanding policy goal that all construction projects receiving public funds should advance, to the extent financially feasible and legally permissible, job quality and training opportunities.

J.         It is in the best interest of the City that affordable housing construction projects be subject to strong labor standards and antidiscrimination protections, to the extent feasible, to ensure that such projects are built with the highest degree of skill and as quickly as possible, to meet the City’s urgent need for housing. 

 K.       It is in the best interest of the City that project developers of affordable housing projects work with local worker representatives and advocates to develop health and safety standards and protections, to the extent feasible, that will allow workers to construct essential affordable housing quickly and safely. 

 L.        The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (“MOHCD”) and recipients of funding from bond proceeds authorized by this measure are strongly encouraged to work collaboratively with local stakeholders during the project development process, to adopt and implement strong labor standards, antidiscrimination protections, health and safety standards, and protections, on all projects financed with bond proceeds authorized by this measure, to the extent feasible.

M.        In 2021, the City adopted its San Francisco Climate Action Plan (“CAP”), which identifies that one of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to ensure San Francisco has dense and affordable infill housing, with not less than 30% of its projected goals of 5,000 new housing units affordable to low- and lower-income households. 

N.        The CAP states that providing more housing in San Francisco affordable to workers will make it easier for the City’s first-responders, service industry workforce, teachers and medical workers to live close to where they work, instead of commuting long distances by car and generating more greenhouse gas emissions. 

O.        This Board of Supervisors (“Board”) unanimously approved the CLEE Report (Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at UC Berkeley), which outlined potential funding sources for the CAP, and unanimously recommended to the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning that a Climate Bond be incorporated into the City’s 10 year Capital Plan.

P.        It is in the best interest of the City that all construction projects, including affordable housing construction projects, incorporate strong climate protections, to the extent feasible, to ensure that such projects are built with the strongest possible climate standards. 

Q.        New construction of affordable housing built on City-owned land will be subject to the green building standards under Environment Code Chapter 7.

R.        It is in the best interest of the City that project developers of affordable housing projects work with local climate advocates to develop appropriate climate standards and protections, to the extent feasible.

S.        MOHCD and recipients of funding from bond proceeds authorized by this measure are strongly encouraged to work collaboratively with local climate advocates and the Department of the Environment, during the project development process, to adopt and implement strong climate standards and protections on all projects financed with bond proceeds authorized by this measure, to the extent feasible.

T.         According to the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (“HSH”), cisgender women and women-identified individuals make up 31% of the total number of homeless or marginally-housed individuals documented by the City, yet an exhaustive survey conducted by the Women’s Housing Coalition of HSH and MOHCD shelter and housing inventory found only 92 out of 23,500 units of permanent affordable housing and 101 out of 3,084 total shelter beds dedicated for cisgender women and women-identified individuals, making up less than one percent and 3.27% of the need for women-specific safe permanent housing and shelter respectively. 

U.        According to HSH, over 75% of women and women-identified homeless have experienced violence on the streets or in shelters, with over 43% experiencing sexual violence, with a 2019 statewide study by the CA Policy Lab documenting that 80% of unsheltered women reporting sexual or violent abuse as the cause of their homelessness. 

V.        According to HSH, 24% of homeless women have had to voluntarily give up primary caretaking responsibilities due to housing instability or homelessness, and 26% have been pregnant while homeless.

W.       Between 2019-2020, while 900 women survivors were reported to have received placement in victim-specific shelter and permanent housing programs, over 2,684 women survivors of street violence, sexual exploitation and/or domestic violence were turned away from Victim Service Provider-Emergency and Transitional Housing, demonstrating that for every survivor who received safe housing that year, at least another three did not.

X.        According to HSH’s 2022/2023 survey of women experiencing homelessness, 56% indicated they had been homeless for over one year, including 11% who confirmed they were homeless with their children with them and 21% who confirmed they could be with their children if they had different housing.

Y.        HSH, the Department on the Status of Women, the Department of Public Health, MOHCD, and the Board convened a half-day retreat with the Women’s Housing Coalition and affordable housing providers who made recommendations on addressing the plight of unhoused and marginally housed cisgender and women-identified survivors of violence and abuse, including implementing easier and quicker access to housing, women-only safe and secure shelter and long-term housing.

Z.         MOHCD will work with HSH and relevant stakeholders to ensure that up to $30,000,000 of Bond proceeds will be allocated to construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate housing for extremely-low income households, very low-income households, and/or lower-income households who need safe and stable housing, and are experiencing (i) trauma-informed homelessness, (ii) street violence, (iii) domestic violence and abuse, (iv) sexual abuse and assault, and/or (v) human trafficking, which population is overwhelming cisgender women and women-identified.

AA       According to the State’s Homeless Data Integration System, between 2017 and 2021, while California’s senior population over the age of 55 years of age grew by 7%, the number of seniors who became homeless as a result of increased housing and healthcare costs, job loss or displacement increased by 84%, a national trend that is particularly exacerbated in the Bay Area, which is one of the most expensive areas to live in the United States.

BB.      The California Department of Finance released a population forecast in 2023 showing that San Francisco’s population of seniors 80 years of age or older is expected to triple in the next four decades, going from 48,000 seniors in 2020 to nearly 137,000 seniors by 2060, while at the same time, the City’s overall population is expected to decline from about 870,000 people in 2020 to 845,000 in 2060, highlighting a significant need for affordable housing for seniors. 

CC.     San Francisco’s Department of Aging and Adult Services’ (DAAS) 2021 Overview Report on Affordable Housing for Seniors and People with Disabilities confirms that seniors aging in place in San Francisco are spending 75% or more of their monthly, fixed income on rent each month, and struggling to pay for other necessities like food and bills.

DD.     It is in the best interest of the City that housing for low-income seniors be prioritized in the City’s work to meet the state-mandated Housing Element requirement to build 46,000 new affordable housing units in the next eight years.

EEH.   The proposed Bond is recommended in the City’s 10-year capital plan, approved each odd-numbered year by the Mayor and this Board of Supervisors (“BOARD”).

FFI.     The proposed Bond will provide a portion of the critical funding necessary to construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate rental affordable housing projects in the City (as further defined in Section 3 below).

Section 2.      A special election is called and ordered to be held in the City on Tuesday, March 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the City a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness of the City for the programs described in the amount and for the purposes stated (herein collectively, the “Project”):

“San Francisco AFFORDABLE HOUSING BondS. $300,000,000 to construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate housing, including workforce housing and senior housing, that will be affordable to households ranging from extremely low-income to moderate-income households, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits; with a duration of up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.0057/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average annual revenues of $25,000,000; and authorizing landlords to pass-through to residential tenants in units subject to Administrative Code Chapter 37,as such Chapter may be amended (the “Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance”) 50 percent of the resulting increase, if any, in the real property taxes attributable to the cost of the repayment of such Bonds, as set forth in Administrative Code Chapter 37, as it may be amended from time to time.”

The special election called and ordered to be held hereby shall be referred to in this ordinance as the “Bond Special Election.”

Section 3.      PROPOSED PROGRAM. The City intends to allocate the Bond proceeds described below to provide to extremely low-, very low-, lower-, and moderate-income households in San Francisco affordable housing rental and homeownership opportunities in accordance with policies and programs set forth by the 2022 Housing Element. “Median Income” is the median income for the City and County of San Francisco determined annually by the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (“MOHCD”), adjusted solely for household size, and derived in part from the income limits and area median income determined by HUD for the San Francisco Metro Fair Market Rent Area, but not adjusted for a high housing cost area. For this Bond, income levels are defined as follows: households earning up to 30 percent of Median Income are “extremely low-income”; households earning up to 50 percent of Median Income are “very low-income”; households earning up to 80 percent of Median Income are “lower-income households”; and households earning up to 120 percent of Median Income are “moderate-income households”. Contractors and City departments shall comply with all applicable City laws when awarding contracts or performing work funded with the proceeds of Bonds authorized by this measure. 

A.        CONSTRUCTION: Up to $240,000,000 of Bond proceeds will be allocated to construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate new affordable rental housing, including senior housing and workforce housing, serving extremely low-income households, very low-income households, and lower-income households.

B.        PRESERVATION: Up to $30,000,000 of Bond proceeds will be allocated to construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate rental housing, so as to preserve it as affordable for lower-income households and moderate-income households.

C.        VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS HOUSING:  Up to $30,000,000 of Bond proceeds will be allocated to construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate housing for extremely-low income households, very low-income households, and/or lower-income households who need safe and stable housing, and are experiencing (i) trauma-informed homelessness, (ii) street violence, (iii) domestic violence and abuse, (iv) sexual abuse and assault, and/or (v) human trafficking.

D.        CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.  A portion of the Bond shall be used to perform audits of the Bond, as further described in Section 4 and Section 16 below. 

            Section 4.      BOND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES.

The Bonds shall include the following administrative rules and principles:

A.        OVERSIGHT.  The proposed Bond funds shall be subject to approval processes and rules described in the San Francisco Charter and Administrative Code. Pursuant to Administrative Code Section 5.31, the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee shall conduct an annual review of Bond spending, and shall provide an annual report of the Bond program to the Mayor and the Board.

B.        TRANSPARENCY.  The City shall create and maintain a web page outlining and describing the bond program, progress, and activity updates. The City shall also hold an annual public hearing and review on the bond program and its implementation before the Capital Planning Committee and the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee.

Section 5.      The estimated cost of the bond-financed portion of the project described in Section 2 above was fixed by the Board by the following Resolution and in the amount specified below:

Resolution No. 528-23, on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No.

230972 $300,000,000. 

            Such resolution was passed by two-thirds or more of the Board and approved by the Mayor. In such resolution it was recited and found by the Board that the sum of money specified is too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City in addition to the other annual expenses or other funds derived from taxes levied for those purposes and will require expenditures greater than the amount allowed by the annual tax levy.

            The method and manner of payment of the estimated costs described in this ordinance are by the issuance of Bonds by the City not exceeding the principal amount specified.

Such estimate of costs as set forth in such resolution is adopted and determined to be the estimated cost of such bond-financed improvements and financing, respectively.

Section 6.      The Bond Special Election shall be held and conducted and the votes received and canvassed, and the returns made and the results ascertained, determined, and declared as provided in this ordinance and in all particulars not recited in this ordinance such election shall be held according to the laws of the State of California (“State”) and the Charter of the City (“Charter”) and any regulations adopted under State law or the Charter, providing for and governing elections in the City, and the polls for such election shall be and remain open during the time required by such laws and regulations.

Section 7.      The Bond Special Election is consolidated with the Presidential Primary Election scheduled to be held in the City on Tuesday, March 5, 2024 (“Presidential Primary Election”). The voting precincts, polling places, and officers of election for the Presidential Primary Election are hereby adopted, established, designated, and named, respectively, as the voting precincts, polling places, and officers of election for the Bond Special Election called, and reference is made to the notice of election setting forth the voting precincts, polling places, and officers of election for the Presidential Primary Election by the City’s Director of Elections to be published in the official newspaper of the City on the date required under the laws of the State.

Section 8.      The ballots to be used at the Bond Special Election shall be the ballots to be used at the Presidential Primary Election. The word limit for ballot propositions imposed by Municipal Elections Code Section 510 is waived. On the ballots to be used at the Bond Special Election, in addition to any other matter required by law to be printed thereon, shall appear the following as a separate proposition:

  “SAN FRANCISCO AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS. To construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate housing, including workforce housing and senior housing, that will be affordable to households ranging from extremely low-income to moderate-income households; shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $300,000,000 in general obligation bonds, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits, with a duration of up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.0057/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average annual revenues of $25,000,000?”

The City’s current debt management policy is to maintain the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds below the 2006 rate by issuing new general obligation bonds as older ones are retired and the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors.”

Each voter to vote in favor of the foregoing bond proposition shall mark the ballot in the location corresponding to a “YES” vote for the proposition, and to vote against the proposition shall mark the ballot in the location corresponding to a “NO” vote for the proposition.

            Section 9.      If at the Bond Special Election it shall appear that two-thirds of all the voters voting on the proposition voted in favor of and authorized the incurring of bonded indebtedness for the purposes set forth in such proposition, then such proposition shall have been accepted by the electors, and the Bonds authorized shall be issued upon the order of the Board. Such Bonds shall bear interest at a rate not exceeding that permitted by law.

            The votes cast for and against the proposition shall be counted separately and when two-thirds of the qualified electors, voting on the proposition, vote in favor, the proposition shall be deemed adopted.

Section 10.    The actual expenditure of Bond proceeds provided for in this ordinance shall be net of financing costs. 

Section 11.    For the purpose of paying the principal and interest on the Bonds, the Board shall, at the time of fixing the general tax levy and in the manner for such general tax levy provided, levy and collect annually each year until such Bonds are paid, or until there is a sum in the Treasury of the City, or other account held on behalf of the Treasurer of the City, set apart for that purpose to meet all sums coming due for the principal and interest on the Bonds, a tax sufficient to pay the annual interest on such Bonds as the same becomes due and also such part of the principal thereof as shall become due before the proceeds of a tax levied at the time for making the next general tax levy can be made available for the payment of such principal.

Section 12.    This ordinance shall be published in accordance with any State law requirements, and such publication shall constitute notice of the Bond Special Election and no other notice of the Bond Special Election hereby called need be given.

Section 13.    The Planning Department has determined that the actions contemplated in this ordinance comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). Said determination is on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 230971 and is incorporated herein by reference. The Board affirms this determination.

Section 14.    On September 22, 2023, the Planning Department issued its General Plan Referral Report finding that the actions contemplated in this ordinance are consistent, on balance, with the City’s General Plan and eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. The Board adopts these findings as its own. A copy of said General Plan Referral Report is on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 230971, and is incorporated herein by reference. 

Section 15.    Under Section 53410 of the California Government Code, the Bonds shall be for the specific purpose authorized in this ordinance and the proceeds of such Bonds will be applied only for such specific purpose. The City will comply with the requirements of Sections 53410(c) and 53410(d) of the California Government Code.

Section 16.    The Bonds are subject to, and incorporate by reference, the applicable provisions of Administrative Code Sections 5.30-5.36 (the “Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee”). Consistent with Administrative Code Section 5.31, to the extent permitted by law, 0.1% of the gross proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in a fund established by the Controller’s Office and appropriated by the Board of Supervisors at the direction of the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee to cover the costs of such committee.

Section 17.    The time requirements specified in Administrative Code Section 2.34 are waived.

Section 18.    The City hereby declares its official intent to reimburse prior expenditures of the City incurred or expected to be incurred prior to the issuance and sale of any series of the Bonds in connection with the Project. The Board hereby declares the City’s intent to reimburse the City with the proceeds of the Bonds for expenditures with respect to the Project (the “Expenditures” and each, an “Expenditure”) made on and after that date that is no more than 60 days prior to the passage of this ordinance. The City reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds.

Each Expenditure was and will be either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, or (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues. The maximum aggregate principal amount of the Bonds expected to be issued for the Project is $300,000,000. The City shall make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the City that evidences the City’s use of proceeds of the applicable series of Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the related portion of the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The City recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and Expenditures for construction projects of at least five years.

Section 19.    Landlords may pass through to residential tenants under the Residential Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 37), as such Chapter may be amended, 50 percent of any property tax increase that may result from the issuance of Bonds authorized by this ordinance, as set forth in Administrative Code Chapter 37, as it may be amended from time to time.  The City may enact ordinances authorizing tenants to seek waivers from the pass through based on financial hardship. 

Section 20.    The appropriate officers, employees, representatives, and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to do everything necessary or desirable to accomplish the calling and holding of the Bond Special Election, and to otherwise carry out the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 21.    Documents referenced in this ordinance are on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 230971, which is hereby declared to be a part of this ordinance as if set forth fully herein.