San Francisco County Grand Jury
2013-2014
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
More than 50 deputies are presently out on long term disability. Board of Supervisors Agree The Board of Supervisors notes that the Sherriff" Department disputes the figure of 50 of the San Francisco Jails Their positions are being held, preventing the hiring of new deputies. This deputies, nothing that some employees included in this figure are actually out on FMLA, results in serious overtime costs and additional responsibilities and military or medical leave. The Civil Grand Jury is right to identify the workers compensation workload for staff. The City has a policy of limiting the time an employee and disability retirement application processes as financial drains on the Department that receives temporary disability payments, which leads to eventual impede its ability to fill positions. As the Department of Human Resources notes, most of the permanent disability status and financial closure, thereby opening up operative laws are beyond San Francisco's authority, but practical improvements can be positions for new hires. made by bringing employees back to work on modified duty, an effort the Board of Supervisors fully supports. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs
Related Recommendations (4)
R1a:
The City’s policy for limited-time temporary disability Sherriff’s Department payments should be followed for the Sheriff’s Department, thereby eventually moving any work injury claim to permanent disability status and financial closure of those claims, opening positions for new hires 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails Board of Supervisors 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R1b: The Board of Supervisors should request an audit conducted by the Budget and Legislative Analyst of payments made on behalf of the Sheriff’s Department for workers compensation claims and related overtime costs. R1c: The Sheriff’s Department should review its safety programs with the Workforce Development Division, analyze the cause of worker injuries, and update safety education programs for both staff and inmates. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R1c: The Sheriff’s Department should review its safety programs with the Workforce Development Division, analyze the cause of worker injuries, and update safety education programs for both staff and inmates. Department of Human Resources 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R1d: Communication between the Sheriff’s Department and the Sherriff’s Department appropriate City personnel in the Worker’s Compensation Division who adjust workers’ compensation claims should occur on a regular basis to review ongoing status of all outstanding claims. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R1d: Communication between the Sheriff’s Department and the Department of Human Resources appropriate City personnel in the Worker’s Compensation Division who adjust workers’ compensation claims should occur on a regular basis to review ongoing status of all outstanding claims. This recommendation has Over the last year the DHR Workers’ Compensation Division revamped its claims team for the Sheriff’s Department and implemented a close been implemented communications process. The DHR Workers’ Compensation Division claims team communicates on a weekly basis with the assigned staff at the Sheriff’s Department to review ongoing status of outstanding claims, and regularly conducts claim reviews to ensure claims are being brought to closure. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R2a: The Sheriff’s Department should review and update all policies Sherriff’s Department and procedures for conducting daily activities, and planning and preparing for emergencies every 2 years. Implemented RECOMMENDATIONS AND
R1b:
The Board of Supervisors should request an audit conducted
R1c:
The Sheriff’s Department should review its safety programs
R1d:
Communication between the Sheriff’s Department and the
F2:
Title 15 requires that jails establish policies and procedures for Sherriff’s Department Agree Title 15 requires that jails establish policies and procedures for conducting daily activities and of the San Francisco Jails conducting daily activities and that it plans and prepare for emergencies. that it plans and prepare for emergencies. This is particularly necessary during times of This is particularly necessary during times of transfer of custody or when transfer of custody or when custody duties are shared between departments. custody duties are shared between departments. FINDINGS AND RESPONSES CGJ Year Report Title Finding Response Required 2014 Responses (Agree/Disagree) 2014 Response Text 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs
Related Recommendations (4)
R2a:
The Sheriff’s Department should review and update all policies Sherriff’s Department
R2b:
Inmates admitted to general wards at San Francisco General Sherriff’s Department Hospital must be guarded. Procedures for both nighttime and daytime staffing should be immediately reviewed and all policy and procedure documents updated. 2014 Response Text All inmates admitted to general wards of San Francisco General Hospital are guarded, with rare exceptions, such as those situations provided for pursuant to Penal Code Section 4011.7 and 4011.9. Policy and procedures are reviewed and updated every two years as required by BSCC and Title 15. All inmates admitted to locked jail wards of San Francisco General Hospital (Wards 70 and 7L) are under the supervision of the sheriff s department personnel. A designated sheriff s sergeant is assigned to these wards and is in continuous contact with SFGH administration to determine and implement staffing and policy needs. However, Ward 70 does not always remain open. For the period of February - August, 2014, Ward 70 was only open for 16 days. During the times when 7D is closed, as determined by the Department of Public Health (DPH), inmates are moved to other open hospital wards for medical care. A minimum of one deputy is assigned to guard each inmate. Additional deputies are required to guard an inmate when the inmate has been determined to pose an increased public safety risk. When the jail ward is closed, the cost of the deputies to guard inmates in the open wards is usually paid on overtime, due to the changed staffing needs that this assignment requires. County Jail #5 is the newest jail facility for San Francisco inmates and houses a medical unit that is not adequately utilized. Additional medical services should be administered through this facility which would reduce the number of inmates requiring transport to, and supervision at SFGH. Providing enhanced services at the facility level would mitigate the staffing challenges required to transport an inmate to SFGH. As the BSCC confirmed in their July 2013 inspection, "with staffing levels very low it becomes challenging to carry out everyday duties when staff is called upon unexpectedly to transport inmates." 2013-14 R2b: Inmates admitted to general wards at San Francisco General Department of Public Health Hospital must be guarded. Procedures for both nighttime and daytime staffing should be immediately reviewed and all policy and procedure documents updated. R2c: Inmates are transferred between SFPD stations and when Sherriff’s Department necessary, to San Francisco General Hospital. Procedures for any transfers should be clarified and established as a Policy & Procedure document. Recommendation already Per SFGH Administrative policies 6.06 Care of Custody/Forensic patients at SFGH Acute Care Units and 16.22 Prisoner/Patient: Treatment and transport implemented through SFGH, SFGH has specified policies and procedures in place for ensuring patients in custody are always guarded by the arresting agency or SFSD. (SFGH Administrative policies 6.06 and 16.22 were attached to response) Implemented - ongoing Recent policy and procedures regarding inmates being transferred between SFPD stations and SFGH have been updated and implemented in coordination with the Station Transfer Unit program commenced in July, 2014.The Station Transfer Unit program is a pilot program between the San Francisco Police Department and the sheriff's department for the sheriff to provide inmate transportation from the police station to the sheriff s intake facility or to SFGH, when needed. The pilot program includes transfers from Mission Station and Tenderloin Station. The pilot program runs through 2014. Further, the department is in the process of preparing the Emergency Room Forensic Patient Policy for how individuals in custody are safely transported to SFGH emergency room from a custody facility or police station. This policy is expected to be finalized in October, 2014. The San Francisco Sheriff s Department (SFSD) and the SFPD entered into a Letter of Agreement (LOA) for a six-month pilot project that began July 19, 2014, for district station transportation services at two stations, Tenderloin and Mission. Section 1.4 "Scope of Service" of the LOA sets out the parameters under which the SFSD assumes responsibility for SFPD custodies from Mission and Tenderloin stations. Until SFSD personnel assume responsibility for a custody, SFPD members are required to adhere to all established SFPD policies, procedures and protocols relating to booking, detention and handling of inmates. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R2c: Inmates are transferred between SFPD stations and when San Francisco Police Department necessary, to San Francisco General Hospital. Procedures for any transfers should be clarified and established as a Policy & Procedure document. Implemented 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R2c: Inmates are transferred between SFPD stations and when Department of Public Health necessary, to San Francisco General Hospital. Procedures for any transfers should be clarified and established as a Policy & Procedure document. Recommendation already Per SFSD Standing Procedure Hospital Transport/Deputy Protocol there is a specified procedure for ensuring patients in custody are safely transported implemented between SFGH and the county jail. In addition, the Inpatient Forensic Psychiatric Unit has specific guidelines they follow when transferring patients back to the county jail that includes a clinical handoff to Jail Psychiatric Services staff prior to transfer. These guidelines are documented in SFGH Administrative policies 6.03 Jail Health Services: Emergency Psychiatric Evaluation and Treatment of Prisoner/Patients and 6.04 Forensic Service: Admission of the Prisoner/Patient to the 7L Psychiatric Unit at San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center. SFGH Administrative policies 6.03 and 6.04 are attached. The SFSD and SFPD are in the process of developing a policy and procedure to address the specific recommendation regarding how people in custody are safely transported between SFPD stations and when necessary to SFGH. This pending policy is in draft form and is expected to be finalized October, 2014. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R2d: During transfers, inmates may be intoxicated or needing minor Sherriff’s Department medical care. Procedures for handling this situation should be clarified with the Department of Health to establish a policy and procedure document. Implemented RECOMMENDATIONS AND
R2c:
Inmates are transferred between SFPD stations and when
R2d:
During transfers, inmates may be intoxicated or needing minor Department of Public Health medical care. Procedures for handling this situation should be clarified with the Department of Health to establish a policy and procedure document. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R3a: The Sheriff’s Department should review and revise its written Orientation Guide for incoming inmates regarding safety, behavior standards, and daily routines. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs of the San Francisco Jails R3b: Appropriate reading level should be ascertained and applied to Sherriff’s Department the guidelines in
F3:
Title 15 requires that inmates at intake and upon transfer to Sherriff’s Department Agree All inmates who will be housed in a jail facility receive an orientation booklet during the of the San Francisco Jails another jail facility receive written orientation materials. Current classification process. This booklet contains information regarding safety, behavior guidelines for incoming inmates regarding safety, behavior standards, and standards, and daily routines and is available in English, Spanish and Cantonese. daily routines need review for content and for appropriate level of reading ability. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
Education professionals will be included in this evaluation and update of the orientation guide. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs R4a: An Advisory Committee of educators and industry Sherriff’s Department Requires Further Analysis The Five Keys Charter School has a board of directors, including the sheriff and community members, who develop the program including the of the San Francisco Jails professionals should be organized to advise each Five Keys program development of goals and practices to expand student attendance, academic studies, and job preparation. Other programs have their own advisory on further development of goals and practices to expand student committees. As an example, The Women's Resource Center, which provides services to women post release, is advised by the Gender Responsive attendance, academic studies, and job preparation. Blueprint. In addition to the varied educational programming offered by the Five Keys Charter School, the department is home to the following educational and newly implemented vocational programs: Solar Design and Installation Training - participants learn solar design and installation techniques. The curriculum teaches information allowing participants to study for and eventually take the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Exam and offers job placement assistance. Digital Arts Training - participants learn digital media tools, including HD video cameras. All participants receive a one year membership to the Bay Area Video Coalition, allowing access to variety of technology and art classes. Cisco Academy - participants receive computer networking essentials and instruction in computer troubleshoot ng, repair and installation. The curriculum teaches information allowing participants to eventually take the Cisco Networking Essentials Certification exam. San Francisco City College - City College, in a pilot program in collaboration with Five Keys Charter School, began offering two college courses in the Spring 2014. Current courses are prerequisites for their Drug and Alcohol Counseling and Prison Health Worker Certification programs .Roots of Success - a new job readiness curriculum offered by Five Keys is being implemented which increases students' academic, professional, and leadership skills. This program is specifically designed for students who have barriers to employment and provides information about employment and social enterprise opportunities and provides training to increase job related search and interview skills. Construction Training - a program is being created to provide training and a direct link to construction employment opportunities. Culinary Arts - currently, the Serve Safe certification program is offered to male and female inmates. A student is provided training to take the exam to become a state certified food handler. A program is being created to further provide vocational training and supported employment opportunities for women, post release. This program will be located in the Women's Resource Center, a resource facility focused on assisting women post release. Urban Gardening - a program combining classroom study and on-hands gardening experience at the sheriff s San Bruno property. NoVA - No Violence Alliance. This program is an individual intensive case management program for males providing education, employment counseling, substance abuse counseling, therapy, and housing support. NoVA is offered at 70 Oak Grove, the post release facility for men. Further analysis and discussion is needed in order to determine whether an advisory board would be an effective tool to further the accomplishments already being made by Five Keys, this department and the varied community partners. 2013-14 Inquiry into the Operation and Programs R4b: Further outreach into the community should be accomplished Sherriff’s Department Requires Further Analysis The programs described in
R3b:
Appropriate reading level should be ascertained and applied to Sherriff’s Department
F4:
Title 15 states that if other public provisions are not available to Sherriff’s Department Agree The department's Community Programs Division is renowned for its progressive and of the San Francisco Jails educate those held in custody that the Sheriff should develop education innovative programming for inmates and for formerly incarcerated individuals. The programs with whatever resources were available. The accomplishments department continually seeks additional educational and vocational partners to provide of the Five Keys Charter School have proven noteworthy. The recidivism programming. The Five Keys Charter School is the first program offering a high school rate is 44 per cent, compared to 68 per cent for inmates who do not diploma to jail inmates. It is a respected and progressive program that has been replicated in participate in the program. other jurisdictions. In fact, Los Angeles County, with the largest inmate population in the state, is now home to the appropriately named San Francisco Sheriff s Department Five Keys Charter School. The ability to earn a high school diploma, obtain vocational training, and obtain assistance in finding job opportunities and placement are available through the Sheriff s programs both in and out of custody FINDINGS AND RESPONSES
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a:
An Advisory Committee of educators and industry
R4b:
Further outreach into the community should be accomplished Sherriff’s Department
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Board of Supervisors partially disagrees The Board of Supervisors cannot speak to the specific level or nature of influence as it is not privy to all the interactions between the Mayor’s Office and the Port, though the Mayor’s Office does Trust and Private Dollars Recent activities at the Port have been strongly influenced by the Mayor’s office. influence many activities at the Port and throughout the City. It is difficult to assess “minimal public input” but, based on available evidence, the Board believes the Port Commission has These included the promotion of the 8 Washington Street project, most aspects followed the same practices as every other City agency with respect to public comment, open meetings, etc. There are several other commissions that deal with land use decisions and are of the 34th America’s Cup races, a “legacy project” at Pier 30-32, and an appointed by the Mayor, including: the Public Utilities Commission, Recreation and Park Commission, Airport Commission, Fire commission, and Municipal Transportation Agency Board. The underutilized cruise ship terminal at Pier 27. The Port Commission readily gave Port like any other Commission did its due diligence in trying to obtain public comment. approvals with minimal public input. All other commissions dealing with land use decisions, including Planning, Building Inspection, and Board of Permit Appeals, are not appointed solely by the mayor. Section 12 of the Burton Act specifies that all five Harbor Commissioners be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Board of Supervisors
F2:
Port of San Francisco Disagree The Port has one of the most diverse maritime portfolios of any port on the West Coast. The Port’s facilities handle cargo, cruise ships, ship repair, ferries, excursions, fishing & fish processing Trust and Private Dollars The Port is primarily a land bank and real estate management company; only industries, boat and yacht harbors, harbor services such as tug and barge, bar pilots, and historic vessels. The Port’s Pier 80 is the only breakbulk and project cargo facility in San Francisco Bay. 25% of revenue is from maritime activities. Annual revenues of $82 million are The Port also manages Foreign Trade Zone No. 3 covering 7 Bay Area counties. Additionally, the Port is home to 85+ acres of open space and park lands. On a land basis, maritime use and open not sufficient to meet the needs for infrastructure repair. Today the Port has a space/park activities account for 43% of the Port’s asset portfolio while commercial real estate accounts for 57%. Maritime operations typically require large, low density footprints and are policy of attempting to repair all existing piers and related structures limited to ground level. Port parks and open space areas also are limited to the ground level. By contrast commercial real estate operations are high density uses and can be implemented in multi-story facilities, such as the Ferry Building. As such, they generate a higher return per square foot than either maritime operations or parks and open space. Maritime activities often generate lower revenues than commercial real estate activities and logically would represent a smaller proportion of the Port’s overall revenues. Open space and park activities do not generate any income and therefore are not captured in the Port’s revenues. It is disingenuous to measure the Port’s value and contributions simply on a revenue basis. However, the Port agrees that Port facilities, especially Port berths, be utilized first for maritime purposes. To that end, the Port adopted its Maritime Industry Preservation Policy in 2011 which guides Port staff, tenants and developers in the importance of maintaining the Port’s long-held maritime assets for current and future maritime activity in accordance with the City’s long maritime history, the Port’s core maritime mission, the Public Trust doctrine and the Burton Act. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a:
Costs and benefits to repair and maintain these piers should be
R2b:
Port of San Francisco
F3:
Port of San Francisco Disagree The Port and the public have expended tremendous effort and investment to make this one of the most renowned waterfronts in the world, while still operating as working port. The Port has Trust and Private Dollars The waterfront is one of the most desirable areas in the City. Proposed projects sought public participation for almost 100 years beginning in 1918 when the Port established receive only limited public input by Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) whose its first citizen’s advisory committee. Today that has expanded to 6 advisory groups providing public input on projects and operations in (1) Fisherman’s Wharf, (2) Northeast Waterfront & Ferry members are selected by the Port. The Planning Department and Mayor’s Office Building, (3) Central Waterfront, (4) Southern Waterfront areas, and Portwide through the (5) Maritime Commerce Advisory Committee and (6) Waterfront Design Advisory Committee. A Piers have a great deal of authority to influence the selection of development projects. 30-32 Citizens Advisory Committee existed until April 2014. In the last 8 years, 400+ public meetings have been Citizens at large are made aware of these projects only after the Port has held by the Port or the Board of Supervisors: published an RFP. The public is not made aware of possible alternate uses that SWL 322-1 11 may have been considered during the early stages of project Crane Cove Park 40 planning. Pier 27 Cruise Terminal 43 Exploratorium 50 Piers 30-32 50 SWL 337 50 SWL 351 82 Pier 70 88 TOTAL 414 All advisory committee meetings are public meetings. Notices are sent to 1,500 interested citizens who have requested to be informed of and follow these meetings. This high level of interest and opportunity for public participation is in addition to public meetings held by the Port Commission, Planning Commission, BCDC and Board of Supervisors required for major Port development projects and non-maritime leases. The Port carries out additional public outreach with neighborhood groups and other stakeholders through presentations, workshops, surveys and solicitation of comments through the Port website for major community planning projects, such as the Blue Greenway, Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 70. Development concepts for most Port sites are discussed in Port advisory committee and Port Commission meetings before the developer selection process. Projects that emerge as sole source opportunities approved by the Board of Supervisors (such as the Exploratorium and the International Museum of Women) also are subject to review and discussion at Port advisory committee and other public meetings. The Port hosted 50 public meetings on behalf of the Exploratorium project. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Proposed variances from the Plan should receive increased
F4:
Port of San Francisco Disagree The overarching priority of the Waterfront Land Use Plan, and therefore the Port, is to reunite San Francisco with its waterfront. The success of the Port and its partners in meeting this priority is Trust and Private Dollars The priority of the Port for development is to create an income stream for capital clear: more than 24 million people visited the waterfront in 2013 for employment, transportation, education, exploration, entertainment, recreation or simply to engage passively with the Bay. improvements rather than a determination of how best to enhance the quality of In the past 17 years, since adoption of the Waterfront Land Use Plan, the Port has realized more than $1.6 billion of investments from both public and private dollars. These investments have life for the residents of the City. Port revitalization has been enhanced in the past enhanced the quality of life for residents of the City and the greater Bay Area, as well as garnered the City even greater international acclaim. Specifically, the following improvements have been by adherence to the Waterfront Land Use Plan. Developments have provided realized as a result of the Waterfront Land Use Plan and public input, creating more value to the citizens of San Francisco than at any other time in the past century: local business opportunities, mixed housing where appropriate, stronger public ~More than 63 acres of waterfront open space, including 20 new parks; 19 prized Port historic resources have been fully or partially rehabilitated consistent with federal or local historic transit options, maintenance of height and bulk limits, and preservation of view standards, to meet modern seismic standards allowing the public to enter and enjoy these resources; 7 derelict piers and wharves have been removed from the Bay (removal of Pier 64 is in corridors. Some uses, however, both current and proposed, of Port land do not progress); Up to 6.3 million square feet of new residential conform to the Waterfront Land Use Plan. Zoning and height limits have been and commercial development and 22 new acres of waterfront open space are being planned jointly with the community for Seawall Lot 337 changed by the Planning Department and the Mayor’s Office. There is a lack of and Pier 70, to transform the Port’s central and southern waterfront. The Waterfront Land Use Plan anticipated the need for public-private development partners to improve Port facilities in transparency in development proposals, particularly in regard to input from the addition to public funds. The Port’s 10-Year Capital Plan has advanced a more sophisticated understanding of Port capital needs that now supports a strategic approach to improve Port facilities. Mayor’s Office and active involvement of former Mayoral staff advocating on While the Port does strive to pursue behalf of developers, giving rise to concerns that an agreement had been projects that do not have to be subsidized, there is no stated priority for development. The development projects the Port has pursued have reached prior to public input. been effective means to repair Port properties and deliver public benefits, as well as Port revenue. All major development projects, whether or not the Office of Economic & Workforce Development has been involved, are thoroughly vetted in public meetings over many years before they may be approved by the Port Commission, Planning Commission, BCDC and Board of Supervisors. Multi-phase developments such as proposed for Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 70, undergo extra public planning process before soliciting development partners. In both cases, meetings were held to discuss the scale of adjacent development in Mission Bay and Dogpatch respectively and the potential for height increases. From the outset, the public knew that both of these projects would require amendments to the Waterfront Land Use Plan, City zoning and possible other Planning Commission controls. The Port’s planning and community engagement efforts are framed specifically to maximize transparency. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a:
The Port should immediately begin an assessment and update Port of San Francisco
R4b:
The Port should ensure that changes or variances to the
F5:
SF Municipal Transportation Authority Wholly Disagree While SFMTA acknowledges that future growth along the waterfront will add new demands on the transportation network, SFMTA wholly disagrees with the statements that transportation Trust and Private Dollars Further development along the waterfront will add new transportation along the waterfront does not meet current needs and that SFMTA is not addressing development on Port lands. While the waterfront transportation network does at times experience service requirements. Transportation along the waterfront does not meet current needs. challenges, especially during the AM and PM peak periods, the SFMTA meets that challenge every day by serving thousands of trips by transit, bicycle, pedestrian, paratransit, taxi and auto. In Portions of the Embarcadero are closed during cruise ship arrivals and events at planning for all local transportation modes and parking throughout the waterfront transportation network, within a very dense urban environment that has limited capacity on its streets, SFMTA AT&T Park. Emergency vehicles sometimes use the light transportation planners must strive to be as efficient and resourceful in the use of space as possible, resulting in coordinating actions such as allowing emergency vehicles to use the exclusive rail right of way to circumvent traffic even when there is no major activity on the transit right of ways on the Embarcadero, redirecting traffic around cruise ship arrivals, or adding supplemental Muni services during large events. With regard to the statement “San Francisco Embarcadero. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency master plan does Municipal Transportation Agency master plan does not directly address development on Port lands,” it is important to note that SFMTA does not, per se, maintain a “master plan” for the San not directly address development on Port lands. Francisco transportation network. As standard practice, the Agency works internally with Agency divisions, and externally with city departments, the Port, regional transportation agencies (e.g. BART, Caltrain, WETA), and community stakeholders to coordinate their transportation plans with planned growth throughout the city. These include the San Francisco General Plan, the San Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan, and the Waterfront Land Use Plan, maintained respectively by the San Francisco Planning Department, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and the Port. With regard to coordinating transportation planning with development on Port lands, over the past two years, the SFTMA has been working directly with the Port, other public agencies (e.g., Planning, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Office of Community Infrastructure and Investment, BART, Caltrain, WETA), project sponsors and community stakeholders on the Waterfront Transportation Assessment (the “Assessment”) to identify needs and develop concepts for transportation improvements that specifically focus on areas of future development on Port properties, including Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 70. Phase 1 of the Assessment was completed in late 2013, and resulted in several dozen transportation strategies that may be enlisted to supplement current services, to advance planned services, and/or to support the transportation demands of future developments on both city and Port properties. The referenced transportation strategies are located at: (http://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/131107_Posted%20DRAFT_Matrix%20wNarrative.pdf). Phase 2 of the Waterfront Transportation Assessment will take shape as Port property development proposals are refined over the next several years, and will help to move “transportation strategies” into “transportation solutions” that will accompany those projects 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
SFMTA should incorporate current and future transit needs,
F6:
Port of San Francisco Partially Agree Trust and Private Dollars When it becomes operational, the Cruise Ship Terminal at Pier 27 is projected to be severely underutilized. This is because federal law, namely the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886, prohibits foreign-flagged passenger ships from calling on two U.S. ports without an intervening foreign port. This Act greatly restricts the use of the newly built Cruise Ship Terminal. The Port estimates that the use of the terminal would increase from the current 50 visits per year to 150 visits if the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 were amended or the Port were granted an exemption for a pilot program. It is also estimated that there is between $750,000 and $1 million economic benefit to the City from each docking. This includes ship provisioning, tourism, berthing fees and tugboats. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City should immediately begin lobbying for modifications to Port of San Francisco
F7:
Port of San Francisco Partially Agree The Port Waterfront Land Use Plan designates Piers 30-32 and Seawall Lot 330 as a mixed use development opportunity site, and allows maritime, commercial, public assembly and Trust and Private Dollars Under the 2012 GSW proposal, the Port would not have received rent from the entertainment and public open space uses at Piers 30-32, but a sports facility would have required a leasing of Pier 30-32 to GSW for the next 66 years. Property tax revenue Waterfront Land Use Plan amendment. The housing and hotel mixed uses proposed on Seawall Lot 330 by the Golden State Warriors (GSW) are associated with the IFD that was to be established would have been used to allowed in the Waterfront Land Use Plan. The public process provides the public forum for considering whether the merits of a project support repay the IFD bond for the next 30 years. In contrast, if the Port simply sells an amendment to the Waterfront Land Use Plan, which included for review and
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Port should consider alternatives to fund the cost of
F8:
Port of San Francisco Partially Agree The Port and the City did invest money into the hosting of the America’s Cup (Event). Much of this investment was offset by revenues generated by the Event itself and from fundraising by the Trust and Private Dollars The 34th America’s Cup was a major monetary loss to the City’s taxpayers to the America’s Cup Organizing Committee. As reported quarterly to the Port Commission throughout 2013, 87% of the money invested by the Port to support the Event was invested into Port tune of about $6 million and a major loss to the Port of about $5.5 million in infrastructure and facilities to increase their useful life by as much as 30 years. The benefits of these investments far outlive the duration of the Event and will accrue to a new generation of unreimbursed Port expenditures. The City and the Port subsidized the America’s residents and visitors along the waterfront. Significant investments included rebuilding of the apron at Pier 19 for public access, removal of Piers 36 and Pier ½, and structural repairs to critical Cup at taxpayers’ expense. The City received no direct revenue from the 34th marginal wharves (i.e., the deck structures that connect the piers to the upland shore area). For the Event itself, more than 1 million people attended the Event over the course of two summers, America’s Cup event in the form of revenue sharing or venue rent. In negotiating and it was televised repeatedly in 130 countries worldwide, bringing significant attention and acclaim to San Francisco and the Bay as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefit. event and/or development agreements at the waterfront, the City and Port does not seek to make a profit from the deal but is simply looking to recover its costs and break even. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public
Related Recommendations (2)
R8a:
All major events at the Port, like the America's Cup, must be approved by the Port Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public Trust and Private Dollars 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public Trust and Private Dollars PORT RECOMMENDATIONS AND
R8b:
Prior to approval, the City should require a validated cost
F9:
Port of San Francisco Partially Disagree The Port DOES have an official policy for proposed development projects. The Waterfront Land Use Plan, adopted and implemented by the Port Trust and Private Dollars The Port does not have an official policy governing the process for proposed Commission, calls for an extensive public review process prior to the leasing and development of port property. The Port has established advisory committees in each waterfront subarea to hold development projects. Many projects are moved ahead with minimal community public meetings and provide regular public forums for the review process. Over the 17 year period the Waterfront Land Use Plan has been implemented, Port staff has always worked closely input, often in the form of a quick review by the CAC and Planning Department with the affected communities and key stakeholders. During this time, a handful of unsolicited proposals have been made to the Port, such as the Exploratorium project, and Port staff has then worked to incorporate them into the public review process outlined in the Waterfront Land Use Plan. In the case of the Exploratorium, this resulted in 50 public meetings on the project. Often forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. The Pier 70 Master Plan such proposals have an early Board of Supervisors hearing to address appropriateness of the project and sole source waivers. While occasionally projects commence at different starting points was developed with significant community outreach to both the general public along the process continuum, all projects ultimately adhere to the process prior to final project adoption. and affected neighborhood associations. The Plan represents a balance of community needs and the requirement of the developer to obtain a reasonable return on investment. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public
Related Recommendations (2)
R9a:
The Port should ensure ongoing community input be
R9b:
The Jury neither supports nor opposes the development of
F10:
Port of San Francisco Disagree This project has been the subject of more than 50 public meetings during the past 7½ years. The Port has engaged in an extensive and robust public process in planning the Seawall Lot 337 and Trust and Private Dollars Although the development of Pier 48 and Seawall Lot 337,also known as Mission Pier 48 sites. This process began in January 2007 and is still ongoing, 7½ years later. This process included: 1) an 18-month planning phase in which Port staff and Commissioners directly solicited Rock, began in 2007, there has been insufficient information and involvement for planning and use ideas from neighbors and stakeholders; 2) an 8-month RFQ phase when the Port solicited development concepts and engaged in public review and dialogue about the community groups, neighborhood and merchants’ associations, and residents submittals; 3) a 13-month RFP phase when the Port received development proposals and solicited public comments; and 4) a 5-year project predevelopment phase which is still ongoing and potentially affected by this project. includes public input through outreach to neighborhood groups, regular updates to the Port’s advisory groups, as well as public hearings at the Port Commission and Board of Supervisors. This process has utilized many innovative techniques to solicit public input including: 1) direct involvement of Port Commission members in the community planning process, 2) a prominent and representative public Advisory Panel, 3) a 2-step solicitation process that included numerous public meetings with recordation of public comments, and 4) graphic recordation of comments from the public. This process has resulted in a stable development proposal that still responds to public input from the 2007 planning process. The public outreach conducted for this project is described in more detail below. SWL 337 Planning Process Overview •The Port Commission established a Committee of two Commissioners to convene a series of public meetings to address the planning and development of SWL 337. This Committee presided over 7 public workshops during 2007. The full Port Commission held 2 additional public hearings prior to the Port Commission’s authorization to issue an RFQ. RFQ & RFP Process • In October 2007, the San Francisco Port Commission initiated a two‐phase developer solicitation process for SWL 337. The Port Commission also created a public advisory panel, to lead public review of the developer submittals, and make
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Jury recommends increased publicity and outreach so that Port of San Francisco
F11:
Port of San Francisco Disagree State Law allows the formation of Infrastructure Financing Districts on Port property to enable funding of new infrastructure and the uniquely high costs of developing the waterfront. Property Trust and Private Dollars Although State Law does not require voter approval for the issuance of Port IFD tax increment financing is a standard form of publicly financing for publicly-owned improvements. In most states that use this form of financing, voter approval is not required, because IFDs do Bonds, voter approval yields greater public awareness of the costs of proposed not increase taxes. Instead, they leverage planned private investment in order to produce higher property taxes without increasing tax rates IFDs on Port property can fund improvements to Port developments. address sea level rise, to remediate historic contamination of Port property, to install piles and fix the seawall, and to rehabilitate historic resources. Pursuant to the adopted Board of Supervisors policy for Port property, the Board may form IFDs on Port property to address capital needs identified in the Port's 10-Year Capital Plan, which is developed through the City's formal capital planning process – itself a very public process. Port IFDs are repaid through new property tax increment generated from Port property. In most cases, without the use of IFD tax increment, many areas of the Port are too expensive to redevelop and thus no new taxes would be generated. Major planned Port development at Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 70 already faces a requirement for a public vote to establish required heights. Since IFDs cannot be formed until after CEQA is complete, the Civil Grand Jury's
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Jury recommends that the Port Commission work with the Port of San Francisco
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The City does not have a citywide comprehensive plan that addresses the rising sea level issue.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1a:
The City should prepare and adopt a risk assessment in preparation for developing a comprehensive plan regarding the rising sea level issue.
R1b:
The City should adopt a citywide comprehensive plan for adaptation to rising sea levels, especially along its shores and its floodplains, which should include a provision that the plan be reviewed and reassessed every five years. The plan should include the provision that construction projects approval should take into account the anticipated lifespan of each project and the risks faced as outlined in said plan. Special consideration should be given to those anticipated to survive for more than thirty years.
R1c:
The City should build infrastructure systems that are resilient and adaptable to rising sea levels. The City, through its planning and building departments, should require that any construction project vulnerable to future shoreline or floodplain flooding be designed to be resilient to sea level rise at the 2050 projection, e.g., 16 inches, if the construction is not expected to last longer than 2050. For construction intended to last longer than 2050, it is recommended that the City require that the project be designed to address sea level rise projections for the longer term.
R1d:
The City departments that would necessarily be involved in adaptation to rising sea levels, such as Department of Public Works. Public Utilities Commission, Municipal Transportation Agency, the Port, should coordinate their projects with each other and with utility companies, such as PG&E, Comcast, and AT&T, to minimize inconvenience to the public, and to businesses, and further to avoid repetition of efforts and inefficient use of funds, labor, and time. Planning Code and Building Code
F2:
The City’s Planning Code has no provisions addressing the impacts associated with rising sea levels. Without appropriate provisions within the City’s Planning Code, there are no effective means to insure sustainable development on land vulnerable to rising sea levels.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a:
The City should amend its Planning Code to include maps showing the areas in the City that are most at risk from the impacts of sea level rise. The Planning Code should be amended to prohibit development in said at-risk areas unless there is compliance with the provisions of the City’s Building Code and the Port’s Building Code (if applicable to the project) outlined in Recommendation 3 below. The amendment should include a provision that the amended sections of the Code regarding the impact of rising sea levels be reviewed and reassessed every five years.
R2b:
The Planning Code should be amended to discourage permanent development in at-risk areas where public safety cannot be protected regarding the impact of rising sea levels.
F3:
The City’s Building Code and the Port’s Building Code have no provisions addressing the impacts associated with rising sea levels. Without appropriate provisions within the City’s Building Code and the Port’s Building Code, there are no effective means to control construction methods that would insure a project’s resistance to the impacts of rising sea levels.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City’s Building Code and the Port’s Building Code should be amended to include: (l) provisions addressing the impacts associated with sea level rise, especially when combined with sudden storm surges and king tides, (2) construction methods that would ensure a project’s resistance to and protection from the impacts of rising sea levels, especially when combined with sudden storm surges and king tides; (3) amendments written to protect the most vulnerable systems, including but not necessarily limited to, electrical, telecommunications, and fire protection systems; (4) a provision that the sections of the Codes regarding the impact of rising sea levels should be reviewed and reassessed every five years. 10
F4:
BCDC has the final say on any permit within its jurisdiction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City should consult with BCDC at the onset of development plans within BCDC’s jurisdiction to ensure equitable and efficient results without necessitating surplus expenditures and time. Ocean Beach Master Plan
F5:
A comprehensive risk assessment of Ocean Beach, with mitigation recommendations made to the City regarding rising sea levels, was completed by SPUR, with City, State of California and U.S Corps of Engineers involvement, resulting in the Ocean Beach Master Plan, dated May, 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City should consider implementation of recommendations that are most pertinent to the City set forth in the Ocean Beach Master Plan, May 2012. Public Utilities Commission
F6:
A number of measures can be taken now by the Public Utilities Commission to minimize the impact of sea level rise, especially when combined with future king tides and sudden surges.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City should build, through the Public Utilities Commission, larger sewer pumps, sewer pipes, and sewer transport storage boxes surrounding the city in the near future to accommodate king tides, sudden surges, and sea level rise.
F7:
Salt water backflows have already infiltrated the City’s wastewater treatment plants, both in the Bayside and Oceanside plants. Salt water kills organisms in the system that clean wastewater and damages wastewater treatment equipment. As a result of sea level rise, bay and ocean saltwater backflow into the wastewater treatment systems will dramatically increase, causing serious problems for the wastewater treatment processes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City should, as an interim measure, retrofit outfalls in the wastewater treatment system with backflow prevention devices to prevent salt water intrusion into the collection systems resulting 11 from high tides, sudden surges, and rising sea level. Local pump stations should also be installed to raise the flow to sewer discharge structures with higher elevations.
F8:
The Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant (Bayside), built in 1952, is aging and needs restoration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The City should retrofit the Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant to accommodate future king tides, sudden surges, and sea level rise. San Francisco Airport
F9:
The San Francisco Airport (SFO) is located slightly above sea level and therefore vulnerable to flooding from heavy rainfall, king tides, and rising sea levels. A number of measures can be taken now by SFO to minimize the impact of sea level rise, especially when combined with future king tides and sudden surges.
Related Recommendations (3)
R9a:
SFO should increase the height of its existing seawalls along its runways to accommodate rising sea levels.
R9b:
SFO should continue to improve measures to eliminate standing water on its runways to ensure they remain sufficiently above sea level.
R9c:
The northern section of SFO should be analyzed by airport engineers to determine how best to protect its wastewater treatment plant and other infrastructure in that section from sea level rise (e.g. construction of sea walls). The Port of San Francisco
F10:
The Port of San Francisco is built on landfill, and its seawall lies beneath many buildings along the bay. Many piers are in poor condition. A number of measures can be taken now by the Port to minimize the impact of sea level rise, especially when combined with future king tides and sudden surges. 12
Related Recommendations (2)
R10a:
The Port should begin planning and create a timeline for construction of flood control barriers in the low spots along the edges of the piers to prevent waterfront flooding associated with sea level rise.
R10b:
To assist with the cost of protective measures to address sea level rise, the Port Commission should establish a reserve fund as part of its leasing policy whereby a surcharge is assessed as part of the rent or as a separate line item in each lease. City Adaptation Funds
F11:
The City has not set aside funds for the cost of adaptation to sea level rise.
Related Recommendations (4)
R11a:
The City should start a reserve fund for adaptation for rising sea levels, a portion of which could be obtained from a surcharge on development planned for areas vulnerable to said eventuality.
R11b:
The City should assess costs of both implementation of adaptation strategies and potential losses from failing to do so.
R11c:
The City should explore applying for grants offered by Congress’ Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. Receipt of grants is based upon risk assessments indicating that potential savings would exceed the cost of implementation. The City should explore available matching funds from the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal sources.
R11d:
The City should request an insurance premium estimate from FEMA and then compare that estimate with the funding it could acquire from FEMA for mitigation and adaptation against future flooding. Regional Issues
F12:
Rising sea levels is a regional problem. What one community does to protect its shorelines may have a negative impact on a neighboring community.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12a:
The City should, through its Mayor and Board of Supervisors, coordinate its efforts with other cities and organizations in the bay area by establishing a working group to address the impact of rising sea levels. This has been successfully accomplished by four counties on the east coast of Florida, as an example.
R12b:
That the City create a local working group of community citizens and stakeholders to feed into the regional group. RESPONSE MATRIX
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F2:
In some instances, improper campaign contributions were Board of Supervisors Disagree The Board of Supervisors has not formally received information about specific instances but believes the Ethics Commission should follow up on Promise, Practice or Pretense returned to the contributor rather than forfeited to the City as required specific allegations; further, the Board of Supervisors notes that candidates are subject to regular auditing as part of their election campaigns by City law. The Jury found no record of the Commission acting to waive or reduce the forfeiture. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should request an independent audit by Board of Supervisors
F3:
A broader citizen’s right of action to enforce ethics laws will Ethics Commission Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. Promise, Practice or Pretense provide assurance to the public that the laws will be enforced. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Jury recommends that the Ethics Ethics Commission Will be implemented The Ethics Commission will investigate to determine whether an enhancement to a Citizens Right of Action would accomplish the further assurance to the Promise, Practice or Pretense Commission and the Board of Supervisors act to enhance the public that the laws would enforce. Citizen’s Right of Action to enforce all of the City’s ethics laws, with an award of attorney fees and a share of any penalties going to the City for a successful filer, as was provided by Proposition J. 2013-14 Ethics in the City: R3: The Jury recommends that the Ethics Commission and the Board City Attorney Policy mater for the Ethics R3 is a policy matter for the Ethics Commission, The BOS and the Mayor. If requested, the City Attorney's Office will assist the Ethics Commission, the BOS and Promise, Practice or Pretense of Supervisors act to enhance the Citizen’s Right of Action to enforce Commission, BOS and Mayor the Mayor with implementing this recommendation. all of the City’s ethics laws, with an award of attorney fees and a share of any penalties going to the City for a successful filer, as was provided by Proposition J. 2013-14 Ethics in the City: R3: The Jury recommends that the Ethics Commission and the Board Board of Supervisors will not be implemented The Board of Supervisors is not convinced that the existing private right of action needs to be broadened. Promise, Practice or Pretense of Supervisors act to enhance the Citizen’s Right of Action to enforce all of the City’s ethics laws, with an award of attorney fees and a share of any penalties going to the City for a successful filer, as was provided by Proposition J. 2013-14 Ethics in the City: R4: That contract approval forms be converted to a format which Ethics Commission Partially implemented/partially will not Converting each type of form into such a format requires expensive development of software platforms. This particular recommendation would be extremely Promise, Practice or Pretense allows searches by the name of the official, by the name of the be implemented. expensive. Over time, the Commission plans to develop such platforms for most if not all filings it administers. Lack of funding for development means that the contractor, the value of contracts and the date the contract was addition of the various forms will be done as recourses are made available. It should be noted, for example, that 2014 is the first time ever that all Form 700 signed. Behested payments information should be filed electronically financial disclosure filed with the Ethics Commission had to be submitted electronically. This was an important, but technically difficult step. Since there is no in a format that allows for searches and data aggregation. Form 700s specified state electronic schema for these forms, creating a searchable database would be risky as it might not conform to state standards when they are should be formatted to allow data to be searched on income sources, eventually promulgated. But it is a desirable goal and will be accomplished eventually. Absent the proper software, data would have to be entered manually. outside employment, gift sources and travel. This is unrealistic as the cost would be higher in terms of staff time and attendant issues would arise such as transfer error. The Commission has already made great progress in moving its many filings into electronic databases, and there should be no doubt that this will continue. SF is ahead of the majority of jurisdictions in this areas. For example, The New York Times recently noted that the Federal Elections Commission takes weeks and in some cases more than a month to process campaign finance filings of federal candidates, whereas in SF this information is processed in matter of minutes. (Note: this recommendation includes Behested Payment Forms, which are not filed with the Ethics Commission.) 2013-14 Ethics in the City: R4: That contract approval forms be converted to a format which Ethics Commission Executive Director Will be implemented partially Converting each type of form into such a format requires expensive development of software platforms. This particular recommendation would be extremely Promise, Practice or Pretense allows searches by the name of the official, by the name of the expensive. Over time, the Commission plans to develop such platforms for most if not all filings it administers. Lack of funding for development means that the contractor, the value of contracts and the date the contract was addition of various forms will be done as resources are made available. It should be noted, for example, that 2014 is the first time ever that all Form 700 signed. Behested payments information should be filed electronically financial disclosures field with the Ethics Commission had to be submitted electronically. This was an important, bit technically difficult step. Since there is no in a format that allows for searches and data aggregation. Form 700s specified state electronic schema for these forms, creating a searchable database would be risky as it might not confirm to state standers wen they are should be formatted to allow data to be searched on income sources, eventually promulgated. But it is a desirable goal and will be accomplished eventually. Absent the proper software, data would have to be entered manually. outside employment, gift sources and travel. This is unrealistic as the cost would be higher in terms of staff time and attendant issues. The Commission has already made great progress un moving its many filings into electronic database, as there should be no doubt that this will continue. SF is ahead of the majority of jurisdictions in this area. For example, the New York Times recently noted that the Federal Elections Commission takes weeks and in some cases more than a month to process campaign finance filings of federal candidates, whereas in SF this information is processes in a matter of minutes. (Note: Behested payment forms are not filed with the Ethics Commission) ETHICS RECOMMENDATIONS AND
F4:
Some information currently reported and posted is not put Ethics Commission Partially Agree There is some information filed with the Ethics Commission not currently in searchable electronic format. Promise, Practice or Pretense into the standard searchable electronic format. The Jury specifically finds that contract approval forms, Form 700 forms, behested payments forms, and Lobbyists On Behalf Of The City forms can be converted to a searchable format before they are posted. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That contract approval forms be converted to a format which
F5:
Required filings are treated independently and cannot easily Ethics Commission Disagree partially This assertion is not completely accurate. The Commission compiles all campaign and lobbyist filings on DataSF so that the information may be searched and Promise, Practice or Pretense be cross searched electronically using common data reference fields like aggregated. In fact, the Commission uses the campaign and lobbyist data on DataSF to aggregate and visualize the data on the Commissions web dashboards. A name and organization to access and aggregate information types, such recent report by the Mayor's Office describes "how the SF Ethics Commission uses DataSF to increase transparency by summarizing and creating visualizations as dollar amounts, that cross between filings. related to ethics data and reports." Further, the report states "Our top referred is the Ethics Commission, see Figure 12, which has made extensive use of DataSF not only as a publishing platform but as a means to create dashboard and visualizations on it's own site. See Figure 13 on the next page for a screenshot showing how the Ethics Commission creates visualization using the DataSF platform and them embeds the visualization into a web page. This makes them the top embedders, i.e. the top data visualizations that have been viewed within and external website" Further, according to "Governing" magazine, the US Open Data Census in March o this year rates SF as the "best city for open data" in the country. The study involved gives both our lobbyist reporting system and our campaign finance system perfect scores. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Ethics Commission work to develop a common format
F7:
The Ethics Commission provides written information only in Ethics Commission Executive Director Agree This is correct for the time being. Promise, Practice or Pretense English although San Francisco has strong political participation from communities and officials whose first language is not English and who require guides and educational materials relevant to their needs. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Ethics Commission should make guides and educational
F8:
The current definition of “lobbyist” and “contacts” does not Ethics Commission Partially Agree The ordinance was recently amended and updated at the Board of Supervisors (changes not in effect at time Finding was written) Promise, Practice or Pretense provide the public with sufficient information to understand who and how City Hall decisions are influenced despite the intent of the law. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The lobbyist ordinance should be reviewed and amended to
F9:
The effort to influence City Hall decisions is not limited to Ethics Commission Agree Under the change, which was part of a successful simplification of the lobbyist registration process, Expenditure Lobbyist would still have to register paid lobbyist Promise, Practice or Pretense contacts with City officials but also includes outreach to community, the expenditures made to influence public opinion were no longer captured when the changes went into effect. Prior to the change, only five organizations had political and nonprofit organizations as well as to the general public ever reported expenditure lobbying: In 2007, the California Urban Issues Project reported expenditures of $46,400 and the Small Property Owners of SF reported through television ads, mailers, robocalls, polling and other strategies. spending $1000. In 2009, the California Urban Issues Project reported $1702,the SF Common Sense Coalition reported $58110 and the SF Firefighters Local 798 In 2010 the Ethics Commission proposal was approved by the Board to reported $367350. Because the actual number of such reported expenditures were so few, it as not a controversial decision to drop this requirement due to the eliminate reporting on these expenditures limited benefit provided; at the time, no public objection was made. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The requirement for disclosure of all expenditures aimed at
F10:
People holding themselves out as "strategic advisors" Ethics Commission Unable to agree This finding is not adequately explained in the report making it difficult to respond. Promise, Practice or Pretense provide advice on ways to influence City decision-making. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Work of "strategic advisors" that provide guidance on winning Ethics Commission
F11:
The role of e-mail and text messages in governmental City Attorney Disagree The City Attorney's Office has provided guidance on the issues addressed in this finding. The Office's Good Government Guide has provided guidance on these Promise, Practice or Pretense decision-making has not been fully discussed and explored. Rules on issues for several years. The most recently released update of the Guide, published online on August 18, 2014 provides guidance regarding record retention preservation of e-mails in public records are very hazy and some requirements and email (on page 116): "E-mail and other electronic records are subject to the records retention laws. As with paper records, some electronic departmental officials told the Jury they routinely delete e-mail. records fit the definition of "records" in the retention context. But most do not. Guidance from the City Attorney on preservation of e-mail is non- The vast majority of public records in the City's possession do not fall under the definition of "records" within the meaning of records retention law. Therefore, specific. There is no guidance regarding text messages. There is no the City may destroy these records at any time. For example, as a general rule, employees may immediately dispose of phone message slips, notes of meetings, policy that applies to private e-mails and text messages that further research notes prepared for the personal use of the employee creating them, and the large majority of e-mail communications .." The Good Government Guide public decision-making. also provides the following guidance regarding text messages and emails, including those on personal electronic devices (on pages 88-89):The first element of the definition of public record-that it is a "writing"-is immensely expansive. It encompasses any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmission by e-mail or fax, and every other means of recording on any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols. Cal. Govt. Code § 6252(g). This concept of a writing goes beyond the traditional written form. It may consist of communications in any medium that contains encoded information, such as a computer tape, video recording, cassette recording, voicemail, text message, photograph, or movie. E-mails including attachments are writings within the meaning of the Public Records Act. Yet, while it is clear that electronic records are "writings" under the Act, many principles developed under the Act preceded the current era of electronic communications, and those principles and others are in some respects still evolving to catch up with this sweeping technological change.* * * The third element of the definition-that a public record is "prepared, owned, used, or retained by a state or local agency"-is expansive, too. In particular, there may be instances where the City does not own a record that is nonetheless considered a public record. For example, while courts have not definitively resolved the issue, City officials and employees, in an abundance of caution, should assume that work they perform for the City on personal computers or other personal communications devices may be subject to disclosure under the public records laws. Such a record meets the first two elements of the definition of public record; the remaining question is whether, under the circumstances, the law would consider the record prepared or used by the City. Lastly, the Good Government Guide also provides the following additional guidance on text messages (on page 141): Neither the Brown Act nor Sunshine Ordinance addresses text messaging during meetings, and there is no definitive case law on the subject. The City Attorney's Office strongly discourages the practice. Text messaging or use of other personal electronic communications devices during meetings is especially problematic when the policy body is holding an adjudicative hearing, such as a hearing to grant or suspend a permit, that will affect individual private interests. Text messaging during such a hearing could enable a member to surreptitiously communicate with one of the parties, or receive evidence or direction as to how to vote, from an outside party, that other members of the body and the parties do not see. These circumstances may undermine the integrity of the proceeding and raise due process concerns. Even outside the adjudicative context, text messaging or use of other personal electronic communications devices during any meeting of a policy body presents serious problems. The Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance presume that public input d ll b " h d" d bl h h d f h b f h bl ll b h 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Ethics Commission in conjunction with the City Attorney should develop a policy to ensure preservation of e-mails and text messages consistent with preservation of other public records. The policy, along with policies on preservation of public records, should be made available for public comment. Once it is completed and published it should be made available on City Attorney and Ethics Commission web pages that lists each Department, its policy, and how to obtain documents. Department Required to Respond Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 2014
F12:
Many departments have failed to post their sources of Ethics Commission Executive Director Cannot agree/disagree due to lack of The Commission does not have enough information to response to this finding so it cannot yet agree. Promise, Practice or Pretense outside funding as required by the Sunshine Ordinance. information 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Jury recommends that the Ethics Commission and the
F13:
When violations of the standards in a departmental Ethics Commission Executive Director Agree Normally, departments are required to keep employee disciplinary measures confidential. In accordance with the Civil Service Commission's "Citywide Employee Promise, Practice or Pretense Statements of Incompatible Activities are enforced departmentally as a Personnel Records Guidelines" all employee personnel records-including records of completed/resolved/sustained disciplinary actions-must be maintained only in disciplinary matter, the Ethics Commission is not notified and the the employee's Official Employee Personnel File ("OEPF"). How long a disciplinary action remains in the OEPF and what is removed from an OEPF will vary discipline is not disclosed to the public. depending on departmental policy and the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Employees' OEPFs are maintained in their departments; The Ethics Commission does not have access to those files. Thus, only the department head would have information regarding disciplinary matters. Moreover, even if the Ethics Commission did have that information, the right of privacy in the California Constitution protects employees from unwarranted disclosure of confidential information. CA Constitution, Article I, Section 1. Accordingly, as information regarding disciplinary actions taken against an employee is considered a confidential personnel matter/confidential personnel information is not normally disclosable. In addition, there are a number of other state laws protecting employee privacy not mentioned here. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
All violations of departmental Statements of Incompatible
F14:
The Ethics Commission has increased compliance by Ethics Commission Executive Director Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. Promise, Practice or Pretense notifying any employee who fails to file Form 700 within 30 days after the deadline that he or she must file or face potential penalties. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (4)
R14a:
The Ethics Commission should continue to routinely notify all
R14b:
The Ethics Commission should recommend dismissal for any
R14c:
The Ethics Commission should recommend dismissal for any officer or employee who files a Statement of Economic Interest that is inaccurate and relevant to the position they hold. Department Required to Respond Ethics Commission Executive Director 2014
R14d:
Now that all Form 700 filers file electronically, the Ethics
F15:
The disclosures in Form 700 filings also may reveal violations Ethics Commission Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. Promise, Practice or Pretense of San Francisco laws that are enforced locally. This includes compensated advocacy before other commissions and arrangements that violate the locally adopted and enacted Statements of Incompatible Activities for each department. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
The Ethics Commission should audit and act on violations
F16:
City officials travel expenses can be covered by gifts made Ethics Commission Agree Gifts of travel are governed by a myriad of state and local rules; additional disclosure may be advisable. Promise, Practice or Pretense by individuals, lobbyists, business associations, corporations or any other source, including those with financial interests in matters to be decided by the official. The public disclosure is limited to a list of donors or donor organizations contributing $500 or more, but without specifying the total amount of the gift. Additionally, a significant amount of travel expenses are paid through organizations that do not disclose the names of the original donors. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The Ethics Commission should require full disclosure of
F18:
The Board of Supervisors is not subject to this calendar Board of Supervisors Agree While the requirement does not officially apply to the Board of Supervisors, most if not all Supervisors regularly respond to public records requests for their Promise, Practice or Pretense requirement. Many members did provide their calendars upon request, calendars. and the information in their calendars will be helpful for public understanding of their work. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
The Board of Supervisors should adopt a rule subjecting
F19:
The public record will be better served if post-public Ethics Commission Agree with first sentence of finding While in agreement with the first sentence of this finding, the Ethics Commission did not misinterpret the standard and disagrees with that part of the statement. Promise, Practice or Pretense employment restriction waivers are granted by Commission resolutions that indicate the specific grounds for granting the waiver. In at least one instance, the Ethics Commission inappropriately interpreted the "extreme hardship" standard to grant a post-public employment restriction waiver. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
The Commission should grant or deny post-public employment Ethics Commission
F20:
Both the Ethics Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Disagree partially The SOTF refers to very few matters to the Ethics Commission for enforcement. Although this reflects in part a view that not all Sunshine Ordinance violations Promise, Practice or Pretense Task Force act in good faith. They are authorized to come to similar merit referral for enforcement, it has also not fostered a greater agreement or understanding as to the appropriate burden to show or enforce a violation, willful ends – transparency in government. However, there are legal and or not. As illustrated by earlier SOFT responses, there remains ample terrain for collaboration and coordination between these separate but overlapping bodies. procedural differences between their process and their legal requirements. Therefore, the results of their work are not in harmony with each other. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (2)
R20a:
The Mayor's Office should establish a blue-ribbon committee
R20b:
For now, arrangements should be made jointly by the Ethics Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to have complaints heard by an independent hearing officer who would develop a consistent legally sufficient record of the case for the decision of each body. This would allow the meetings of the Task Force and the Commission to focus on broader policy issues. Department Required to Respond Mayor 2014
F22:
While the Commission's Bylaws authorize committees, no Ethics Commission Partially agree Some Commission deliberations have extended for months but not for years, notwithstanding one case of extended delay created at the request of and as a Promise, Practice or Pretense committees have been established or meet. One result is that all courtesy to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. matters requiring deliberation by the Commission are heard only once a month, in a process that can extend for many months and sometimes for years. If the Commission acts through its committee structure, issues can be explored and brought to the full commission in a more developed state, thus providing a better basis for the Commission’s actions. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
The Commissioners should use their committee structure to
F23:
While the Charter mandates the City Attorney represent the Ethics Commission Mostly disagree The Ethics Commission has obtained outside counsel only three times. Promise, Practice or Pretense Ethics Commission, conflicts have arisen repeatedly, and the Ethics Commission has had to obtain outside counsel. We find these instances of conflict are likely to continue, and that the Commission is best represented by a consistent set of lawyers who are not City employees. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
That the Ethics Commission apply to the City Attorney for
F26:
The Ethics Commission, though its staff, can catalog Ethics Commission Disagree The concept is too broad to understand appreciably. Promise, Practice or Pretense information reported elsewhere that is relevant for supplemental understanding of information currently reported locally. Links to this information would be a logical addition to the Ethics Commission web site. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
The Ethics Commission should determine information reported Ethics Commission
F27:
The Charter requires that proposals to amend campaign Ethics Commission Disagree There is no basis for this finding. Promise, Practice or Pretense finance and ethics laws explain how the change will assist in furthering the purpose of the law. The Ethics Commission proposals have not included any statements showing that its proposals will further the purposes of the law. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R27:
When a bill is proposed or passed to amend campaign finance Ethics Commission
F29:
The Findings and Declarations of Proposition J (2000) clearly Ethics Commission Disagree The intents and purposes of Prop J were redrafted, clarified and expanded by Prop E in 2003, in apparent response to concerns that existing law was outdated, Promise, Practice or Pretense articulate many public concerns with role of money in politics and inadequate and confusing. The BOS unanimously voted to place the measure on the ballot by vote of 10-0, and all eleven supported the measure (Ammiano, should be re-adopted, perhaps adapted to be part of the general Daly, Dufty, Gonzalez, Hall, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Newsom, Perkin, Sandovol and Ma. Ma was not present for the vote). This measure was also supported by conflict of interest law - Chapter 2 of Article III of the C&GCC. Common Cause. The measure was also supported unanimously at the Ethics Commission by Commissioners Melbostad, Planthold Garcia and McCoy. Prop E was adopted with support from 62% of the voters. 2013-14 Ethics in the City:
Related Recommendations (1)
R29:
That the Ethics Commission hold a hearing on "Proposition J
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Jury recommends a contract with the Fair Political Practices Commission for at least a two-year pilot basis to enforce both state and related San Francisco law violations. 2013-14 Ethics in the City: Promise, Practice or Pretense 2013-14 Ethics in the City: Promise, Practice or Pretense 2013-14 Ethics in the City: Promise, Practice or Pretense 2013-14 Ethics in the City: Promise, Practice or Pretense 2013-14 Ethics in the City: Promise, Practice or Pretense 2013-14 Ethics in the City: Promise, Practice or Pretense R1: The Jury recommends a contract with the Fair Political Practices Board of Supervisors Commission for at least a two-year pilot basis to enforce both state and related San Francisco law violations. R1: The Jury recommends a contract with the Fair Political Practices City Attorney Commission for at least a two-year pilot basis to enforce both state and related San Francisco law violations. R1: The Jury recommends a contract with the Fair Political Practices District Attorney Commission for at least a two-year pilot basis to enforce both state and related San Francisco law violations. R2: The Board of Supervisors should request an independent audit by Board of Supervisors the City Attorney to determine whether prohibited contributions were forfeited to the City as required by law. R2: The Board of Supervisors should request an independent audit by City Attorney the City Attorney to determine whether prohibited contributions were forfeited to the City as required by law.
R6a:
The Ethics Commission should proactively look at ways to track
R6b:
The Ethics Commission should propose ordinance amendments
R17a:
The Ethics Commission staff should collect the official
R17b:
The City Attorney and the Ethics Commission ensure that those officials subject to the calendar requirement, and their administrative staff, be trained on the law’s requirements. Department Required to Respond Ethics Commission 2014
R21:
The Board of Supervisors should provide the Commissioners an Board of Supervisors
R24:
The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should request an
R25:
The Ethics Commission should begin to focus Staff resources on Ethics Commission
R28:
That the Commission hold hearings, whether through their
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
A statement that informs the process of requesting accommodation for physical disability and/or language support is not easily found or present on many commission websites.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
The Mayor's Office on Disability should coordinate with commissions to ensure that statements for accommodation are easily located on commission websites.
R1b:
When commission websites are developed to include language support, that support should be provided in the same languages used in the voter’s guide. Accountability Annual Report
F2:
Fewer than 50% of the commissions post an annual report as required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Mayor should ensure that each commission posts its annual report on the commission website and provides a URL link to the SFPL, promptly. Attendance
F3:
Commissioner Attendance records are not readily available to the public. To discover this information after the fact is difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
7 All commissions should keep and post to their website a record of commissioner attendance. Maintenance of an ongoing record should be required. List of Commissions
F4:
There is no easy reference to all of the commissions in San Francisco. The most complete list the Jury was able to find is located in the Index of the City Attorney Opinion 2010-01, (pages 98-99).
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City Attorney should ensure that there is an annual list of active commissions that is complete and listed alphabetically. 8 1 RESPONSE MATRIX 2 Accessibility
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
More than 50 deputies are presently out on long term disability. Their positions are being held, preventing the hiring of new deputies. This results in serious overtime costs and additional responsibilities and workload for staff. The City has a policy of limiting the time an employee receives temporary disability payments, which leads to eventual permanent disability status and financial closure, thereby opening up positions for new hires.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1a:
The City’s policy for limited-time temporary disability payments should be followed for the Sheriff’s Department, thereby eventually moving any work injury claim to permanent disability status and financial closure of those claims, opening positions for new hires.
R1b:
The Board of Supervisors should request an audit conducted by the Budget and Legislative Analyst of payments made on behalf of the Sheriff’s Department for workers compensation claims and related overtime costs.
R1c:
The Sheriff’s Department should review its safety programs with the Workforce Development Division, analyze the cause of worker injuries, and update safety education programs for both staff and inmates.
R1d:
Communication between the Sheriff’s Department and the appropriate City personnel in the Worker’s Compensation Division who adjust workers’ compensation claims should occur on a regular basis to review ongoing status of all outstanding claims.
F2:
Title 15 requires that jails establish policies and procedures for conducting daily activities and that it plans and prepare for emergencies. This is particularly necessary during times of transfer of custody or when custody duties are shared between departments.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2a:
The Sheriff’s Department should review and update all policies and procedures for conducting daily activities, and planning and preparing for emergencies every 2 years.
R2b:
Inmates admitted to general wards at San Francisco General Hospital must be guarded. Procedures for both nighttime and daytime staffing should be immediately reviewed and all policy and procedure documents updated.
R2c:
Inmates are transferred between SFPD stations and when necessary, to San Francisco General Hospital. Procedures for any transfers should be clarified and established as a policy and procedure document. 10
R2d:
During transfers, inmates may be intoxicated or needing minor medical care. Procedures for handling this situation should be clarified with the Department of Health to establish a policy and procedure document.
F3:
Title 15 requires that inmates at intake and upon transfer to another jail facility receive written orientation materials. Current guidelines for incoming inmates regarding safety, behavior standards, and daily routines need to be reviewed for content and appropriate level of reading ability.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
The Sheriff’s Department should review and revise its written Orientation Guide for incoming inmates regarding safety, behavior standards, and daily routines.
R3b:
Appropriate reading level should be ascertained and applied to the guidelines in Recommendation 3a.
F4:
Title 15 states that if other public provisions are not available to educate those held in custody that the Sheriff can develop education programs with whatever resources are available. The accomplishments of the Five Keys Charter School have proven noteworthy. The recidivism rate is 44% for program graduates, compared to 68% for inmates who do not participate in the program.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a:
An Advisory Committee of educators and industry professionals should be organized to advise each Five Keys program on further development of goals and practices to expand student attendance, academic studies, and job preparation.
R4b:
Further outreach into the community should be accomplished to incorporate more and varied job opportunities for graduates of Five Keys after their release. RESPONSE MATRIX
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F2:
In some instances, improper campaign contributions were returned to the contributor rather than forfeited to the City as required by City law. The Jury found no record of the Commission acting to waive or reduce the forfeiture. 24 http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2013/07/ethics-commission-policies-re-fixed-penalties-for-violations-of-certain- cfro-sections.html 12
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should request an independent audit by the City Attorney to determine whether prohibited contributions were forfeited to the City as required by law. Citizen’s Right Of Action San Francisco law recognizes a Citizen’s Right of Action to require that the law be enforced in over a dozen different circumstances, ranging from environmental protections to housing code violations. Proposition J in 2000 could be enforced by citizen suit but was repealed three years later as part of voter approved "ethics reform."25 At the state level, the Political Reform Act provides a Private Right of Action both for injunctions and for civil penalties. Injunctions can be sought directly and actions for civil penalties can be brought after government lawyers have declined the case.26 The Public Records Act allows any person to bring action for release of records.27 The Sunshine Ordinance allows any person to bring a civil action to enforce it, especially for release of records.28 Residents can bring a civil action on behalf of the people of San Francisco to enjoin violations of or compel compliance with a conflict of interest or governmental ethics law, provided the City Attorney has declined to bring an action.
F3:
A broader Citizen’s Right of Action to enforce ethics laws will provide assurance to the public that the laws will be enforced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Jury recommends that the Ethics Commission and the Board of Supervisors act to enhance the Citizen’s Right of Action to enforce all of the City’s ethics laws, with an award of attorney fees and a share of any penalties going to the City for a successful filer, as was provided by Proposition J. Whistleblower Program The Jury finds that an important aspect of accountability and anti-corruption standards is a strong whistleblower program with protections against retaliation. The Jury finds that San Francisco currently lacks such a strong program, including protection against retaliation and public disclosure of actions taken based on whistleblower information. The current protections fail to cover contractors working on City-funded projects. The Jury recommends that the whistleblower program, its current provisions and its implementation be an issue for a future Civil Grand Jury.29 25 See discussion as part of the Proposition J review on p. 30 supra. See §91003 regarding injunctions. §§91004-91007 on civil actions, which cannot be brought for as much as 120 days while government lawyers consider whether or not to take the case. 90% of any monies recovered would go to the state; 10% to the citizen, plus attorney fees. Government Code §6258 28 §§67.21(f), 67.35(a) and 67.35(d) of the Sunshine Ordinance 29 We note this has been previously examined by Civil Grand Juries, most recently in 2010-2011 with their report: "Whistling In The Dark: The San Francisco Whistleblower Program" 13 Recommended Systemic and Structural Changes Transparency This Jury looks to the Ethics Commission as the entity who carries the primary responsibility for ensuring the public has thorough access to information. As noted previously, the Ethics Commission has primary responsibility to receive and publish the mandated public disclosures by campaigns, public entities, and public officials under the C&GCC. It also has enforcement responsibility under the Sunshine Ordinance. Ethics Commission Staff deserves credit for moving the vast majority of the campaign forms from paper to paperless which allows the information to be published quickly on the Commission website. This applies to candidate filings as well as to many ballot measure and independent committee filings. The Jury recommends improving public access to open records on the Ethics Commission’s Web site.
F4:
Some information currently reported and posted is not put into the standard searchable electronic format. The Jury specifically finds that contract approval forms, Form 700 forms, behested payments forms, and Lobbyists On Behalf Of The City forms can be converted to a searchable format before they are posted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That contract approval forms be converted to a format which allows searches by the name of the official, by the name of the contractor, the value of contracts and the date the contract was signed. Behested payments information should be filed electronically in a format that allows for searches and data aggregation. Form 700s should be formatted to allow data to be searched on income sources, outside employment, gift sources and travel.
F5:
Required filings are treated independently and cannot easily be cross searched electronically using common data reference fields like name and organization to access and aggregate information types, such as dollar amounts, that cross between filings.30
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Ethics Commission work to develop a common format database for data posted to DataSF, initially aiming to combine campaign, lobbying and Form 700 data. Voters seeking to follow these money trails will have little help from the current system of electronic filing. Under the current system, each report is filed under the name of one committee and each committee report is then filed separately by the date of the filing. There is no system that ties all the reports into a single database that can be easily searched or that can easily provide a total of all contributions to a single individual. It is possible to enter the name of a donor or vendor, but the system then lists each document involving that individual or entity separately. Campaign Related Disclosures With respect to elected officials, there is a broad range of disclosures required for campaign contributions (state and local law), campaign spending (state and local law) and, a variety of campaign related actions, as well as limitations and bans on certain contributions; no contributions over $500 (local law); no contributions from City contractors (local law). These disclosures, rules and restrictions primarily apply to committees formed by a candidate for their own election for local office (not state party offices, etc.). In 2011 and 2012, committees emerged that upend existing practices.
F7:
The Ethics Commission provides written information only in English although San Francisco has strong political participation from communities and officials whose first language is not English and who require guides and educational materials relevant to their needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Ethics Commission should make guides and educational materials available in the major languages as is done in other City Departments. Lobbyist registrations and disclosures In 2013, registered lobbyists reported to the Ethics Commission that their clients paid them over $5.8 million.34 City law does not prohibit contributions from lobbyists to the officials they lobby, unlike state law. In 2013, about $135,000 was contributed to candidates from registered lobbyists.35 The lobbyist law itself excludes from “contacts” 17 categories that do not have to be publicly disclosed.36 This limits the number of people required to register as lobbyists, rightfully excluding many people with limited contacts, but also excluding some people actively involved in influencing decision-making and reducing both the number of contacts reported and the amounts of money spent influencing decision-making. In 2010, the Board accepted amendments drafted by the Ethics Commission that had the effect of eliminating some lobbyists from disclosing their spending and contacts—so-called “expenditure lobbyists.” Among those who are no longer required to make disclosures is the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
F8:
The current definition of “lobbyist” and “contacts” does not provide the public with sufficient information to understand how City Hall decisions are influenced despite the intent of the law. See https://netfile.com/Sunlight/sf/Lobbyist/PaymentsPromisedSearch 35 see: https://netfile.com/Sunlight/sf/Lobbyist/PoliticalContributionsSearch 36 The exclusions are listed at § 2.105(d)(1) of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code and include providing information at the request of an elected official, communicating regarding an existing contract including questions on performance, or negotiating the terms of the contract after being selected to enter into the contract. 16
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The lobbyist ordinance should be reviewed and amended to provide clearer public disclosure of contacts with City officials regarding the interests of clients, and who should be required to register and make disclosures.
F9:
The effort to influence City Hall decisions is not limited to contacts with City officials but also includes outreach to community, political and nonprofit organizations as well as to the general public through television ads, mailers, robocalls, polling, and other strategies. In 2010 the Ethics Commission proposal was approved by the Board to eliminate reporting on these expenditures
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The requirement for disclosure of all expenditures aimed at influencing City Hall decisions should be reinstated in the law with full public disclosure.
F10:
People holding themselves out as "strategic advisors" provide advice on ways to influence City decision-making.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Work of "strategic advisors" that provide guidance on winning approvals from City officials and/or the public should be reviewed by the Ethics Commission for possible inclusion in the lobbyist registration and/or campaign consultant law. Public Entity Disclosures Open public meetings When considering the number of public meetings held by San Francisco Boards, Commissions and other public bodies each year, the numbers of complaints are few. This Jury finds that meeting public meeting requirements have become routine and have become part of the San Francisco government culture. Release of public records When considering the number of public records requests received and fulfilled each year, the number of complaints are few. This Jury finds that releasing public records has become routine and has become part of the San Francisco government culture. The recent move to providing electronic copies of documents to requestors is positive, yielding efficiencies to both the requestor and to the disclosing agency. Technological change has reshaped the world of public meetings and public records. Public meetings are frequently televised and are available for streaming on-line. The members of public bodies are often communicating during the meetings on their computers and telephones. The papers, discussions and public meetings that once documented a decision's "paper trail" now include e-mail, text messages, phone calls and electronic file transfers. Drafts of legislation will often zip around the Internet to be edited by lobbyists and other interests without transparency. Although the Sunshine Ordinance calls for it, the Jury learned that the City has no policy on retaining or disclosing text messages or emails and has no plan to address the increasing intermixture of business and personal communications through multiple e-mail accounts and multiple telephones. 17
F11:
The role of e-mail and text messages in governmental decision-making has not been fully discussed and explored. Rules on preservation of e-mails in public records are very hazy and some departmental officials told the Jury they routinely delete e-mail. Guidance from the City Attorney on preservation of e-mail is non-specific.37 There is no guidance regarding text messages. There is no policy that applies to private e-mails and text messages that further public decision-making.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Ethics Commission in conjunction with the City Attorney should develop a policy to ensure preservation of e-mails and text messages consistent with preservation of other public records. The policy, along with policies on preservation of public records, should be made available for public comment. Once it is completed and published it should be made available on City Attorney and Ethics Commission web pages that lists each Department, its policy, and how to obtain documents. Sources of Outside Funding (Sunshine Ordinance) Many San Francisco’s departmental operations benefit from special grants or gifts. It might be a behest contribution requested by a City officeholder, or it might come from an organization formed to support the department's work. Departments are required to post on their websites the names of anyone who donates $100 or more to assist their operations, along with a statement of any financial interest involving the City the donor might have. If the donation comes from an organization, its members must be disclosed. 38
F12:
Many departments have failed to post their sources of outside funding, as required by the Sunshine Ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Jury recommends that the Ethics Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force review departmental web sites for compliance and notify non-compliant departments to immediately post their sources of outside funding, or face a show-cause before the Ethics Commission on why the information has not been posted. Statements of Incompatible Activities Only Department heads can discipline a Department level official for violating ethical standards, and under current practice, the public is not informed of any sanctions for unethical conduct. Other penalties, such as fines, can be imposed by other enforcement agencies and are made public. Good Government Guide: An Overview of the Laws Governing the Conduct of Public Officials 2010-2011 Edition (downloaded from: http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=686) On one hand, it says e-mails are public records, under the public records act (see pp.80); on the other hand, it narrowly defines records that must be retained —- "For example, as a general rule, employees may immediately dispose of phone message slips, notes of meetings, research notes prepared for the personal use of the employee creating them, and the large majority of e mail communications." p. But the Sunshine Ordinance specifically requires the Mayor and Department Heads to maintain and preserve e-mails in a professional and businesslike manner. §67.29- ‐ 7(a) Also note: The City Attorney has not updated the Good Government Guide, a primer used by city departments and officials, since 2011. The Guide therefore does not contain guidance on current requirements. See § 67.29-6. Sources Of Outside Funding. (Sunshine Ordinance) 18
F13:
When violations of the standards in a departmental Statements of Incompatible Activities are enforced departmentally as a disciplinary matter, the Ethics Commission is not notified and the discipline is not disclosed to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
All violations of departmental Statements of Incompatible Activities should be disclosed to the Ethics Commission and posted on the Commission’s web site.39 Public Official Disclosures Form 700 - Statements of Economic Interests Annual filing of Form 700 is required by state and local law. This year marks the first year of electronic filing. Filings also are required after entering office, either appointed or elected, and upon leaving office. This year, staff started reminding late filers of missed deadlines by mail and by phone, increasing compliance markedly. The state Fair Political Practices Commission ultimately imposes much more substantial penalties on non-filers than are available for the Ethics Commission direct enforcement, so much of the enforcement is handled at the state level.
F14:
The Ethics Commission has increased compliance by notifying any employee who fails to file Form 700 within 30 days after the deadline that he or she must file or face potential penalties.
Related Recommendations (4)
R14a:
The Ethics Commission should continue to routinely notify all non-filers of their obligation within 30 days of the state filing deadline.
R14b:
The Ethics Commission should recommend dismissal for any officer or employee who fails to file 90 days after the deadline.
R14c:
The Ethics Commission should recommend dismissal for any officer or employee who files a Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) that is inaccurate and relevant to the position they hold.
R14d:
Now that all Form 700 filers file electronically, the Ethics Commission should require that all Form 700s be filed with them as well as with the Department filing officer.
F15:
The disclosures in Form 700 filings also may reveal violations of San Francisco laws that are enforced locally. This includes compensated advocacy before other commissions and arrangements that violate the locally adopted and enacted Statements of Incompatible Activities for each department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
The Ethics Commission should audit and act on violations disclosed through Form 700 filings of local prohibitions such as compensated advocacy 39 The Sunshine Ordinance specifically authorizes making public disclosure of employee misconduct – see Sec. 67.24(c)(7). 19 and incompatible activities, and enforce these violations with strong action. Gift of Travel disclosures
F16:
City officials travel expenses can be covered by gifts made by individuals, lobbyists, business associations, corporations or any other source, including those with financial interests in matters to be decided by the official. The public disclosure is limited to a list of donors or donor organizations contributing $500 or more, but without specifying the total amount of the gift. Additionally, a significant amount of travel expenses are paid through organizations that do not disclose the names of the original donors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The Ethics Commission should require full disclosure of contributions or payments for official travel of City officials, including the actual amount contributed and the names of the original donors. The official should also disclose what official business was conducted, including meetings, who participated in the meetings, topics, speeches given, ceremonies attended and other information. Public calendars of public officials (Sunshine Ordinance) The Jury surveyed calendars from the Mayor, the District Attorney, the City Attorney, key department heads and other elected officials for a month during our service. While the Sunshine Ordinance does not require Supervisors to keep a calendar, nearly all of them provided copies.
F18:
The Board of Supervisors is not subject to this calendar requirement. Many members did provide their calendars upon request, and the information in their calendars will be helpful for public understanding of their work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
The Board of Supervisors should adopt a rule subjecting themselves to the public calendar requirement of the Sunshine Ordinance. Waivers of post-public employment restrictions by the Ethics Commission In reviewing meeting minutes where post-public employment restriction waivers have been approved, the Jury did not find specific determinations of how the applicant's waiver would meet the conditions of the ordinance.
F19:
The public record will be better served if post-public employment restriction waivers are granted by Commission resolutions that indicate the specific grounds for granting the waiver. In at least one instance, the Ethics Commission inappropriately interpreted the "extreme hardship" standard to grant a post-public employment restriction waiver.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
The Commission should grant or deny post-public employment restriction waiver applications by resolutions that indicate specifically how the decision meets the conditions of the ordinance. Sunshine Ordinance Task Force and the Ethics Commission The Ethics Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force have had a complicated relationship over the years rooted in the enforcement (and enforceability) of the Sunshine Ordinance. Decisions of the task force are not enforced by the Ethics Commission without further investigation. The ultimate finding the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force can make is to find someone has committed "official misconduct.”40 This is an end point in their process since they lack authority to enforce their findings. "Official misconduct" is defined in Charter provisions dealing with the Ethics Commission and its role in the removal of certain elected officials from office.41 Because of these consequences for the accused, due process protections should be observed.
F20:
Both the Ethics Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force act in good faith. They are authorized to come to similar ends—transparency in government. However, there are legal and procedural differences between their process and their legal requirements. Therefore, the results of their work are not in harmony with each other. 40 67.34. WILLFUL FAILURE SHALL BE OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. The willful failure of any elected official, department head, or other managerial city employee to discharge any duties imposed by the Sunshine Ordinance, the Brown Act or the Public Records Act shall be deemed official misconduct . Complaints involving allegations of willful violations of this ordinance, the Brown Act or the Public Records Act by elected officials or department heads of the City and County of San Francisco shall be handled by the Ethics Commission. 41 §(e) OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. Official misconduct means any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her office, willful in its character, including any failure, refusal or neglect of an officer to perform any duty enjoined on him or her by law, or conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers and including any violation of a specific conflict of interest or governmental ethics law. When any City law provides that a violation of the law constitutes or is deemed official misconduct, the conduct is covered by this definition and may subject the person to discipline and/or removal from office. 21
Related Recommendations (2)
R20a:
The Mayor's Office should establish a blue-ribbon committee of experts and stakeholders in open government, sunshine, and transparency, including former Sunshine Task Force members. The Committee of Experts should review and update the Sunshine Ordinance as necessary and should report to both entities and the Board of Supervisors recommendations that would result in coordination and respect for the functions of each entity.
R20b:
For now, arrangements should be made jointly by the Ethics Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to have complaints heard by an independent hearing officer who would develop a consistent legally sufficient record of the case for the decision of each body. This would allow the meetings of the Task Force and the Commission to focus on broader policy issues. Ethics Commission Structure and Relation to Staff An appointed Commission has general policy-making powers.42 A department head has responsibility for administering the department.43 The Ethics Commission itself is established by §15.100 of the Charter which details the appointment process and establishes their ability to call witnesses. Charter §15.101 authorizes them to hire an Executive Director who “shall be the chief executive of the department and shall have all the powers provided for department heads.” Article XV of the Charter goes on to delineate the rulemaking power of the Commission and to define its role in the process removing public officers from their positions. Other duties of the "Ethics Commission" are enumerated in
F22:
While the Commission's Bylaws authorize committees, no committees have been established or meet. One result is that all matters requiring deliberation by the Commission are heard only once a month, in a process that can extend for many months and sometimes for years. If the Commission acts through its committee structure, issues can be explored and brought to the full Commission in a more developed state, thus providing a better basis for the Commission’s actions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
The Commissioners should use their committee structure to focus 45 Specifically authorized by § 4.102(9) of the Charter. 23 on Ethics Commission issues. In the weeks between monthly meetings, each commissioner could take the lead on issues of concern to the Ethics Commission, such as developing policies on emerging campaign finance issues, transparency matters, complaint processing and training. This structure would allow for more interaction with the public and the regulated community. The Charter specifies the City Attorney shall be the legal advisor of the Ethics Commission.46 At times, the City Attorney has stepped aside from certain matters due to potential conflicts of interest. Routinely, the City Attorney advises the Commission on matters where other departments, also represented by the City Attorney, hold differing positions. This creates an appearance of impropriety. Given the twenty year history of the City Attorney working with the Ethics Commission, it is appropriate for both parties to take a long dispassionate look at how these arrangement works and consider the possibility of having the Ethics Commission engage outside counsel. The Charter provides a case-by-case process for a department to seek outside counsel.47 Perhaps this process can be adapted to fit this situation if the City Attorney and the Ethics Commission reach an agreement on representation.
F23:
While the Charter mandates the City Attorney represent the Ethics Commission, conflicts have arisen repeatedly and the Ethics Commission has had to obtain outside counsel. We find these instances of conflict are likely to continue and that the Commission is best represented by a consistent set of lawyers who are not City employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
That the Ethics Commission apply to the City Attorney for permission to engage outside counsel for advice and recommendations. Commission Performance And Staffing The Jury is making recommendations that fundamentally reshape what the Ethics Commission does and how it goes about its tasks. Therefore, depending on which of our recommendations are accepted for implementation, the Ethics Commission budget, staffing, and performance needs to be reviewed to determine appropriate levels of staffing and budget resources. That review is beyond the scope of this report. Interactions with ethics professionals from other jurisdictions can inform the Ethics Commission and its staff about emerging best practices for ethics professionals in government but no one has attended the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws meetings in recent years. The Jury hopes that representatives of the Commission can attend Council on Governmental Ethics Laws meetings again and report back to the Commission on what they learn. A New Focus For Commission Activities City Charter Appendix C3.699-11(6) states: "The commission shall report to the board of supervisors and Mayor annually concerning the effectiveness of such laws," referring to 46 Charter §15.102 47 See Charter §6.102 24 campaign finance, conflicts of interest and governmental ethics laws. A City Attorney advice letter concluded that the Charter language did not specify whether meeting this requirement should be done in writing, orally or in another format, but it did not conclude that the requirement did not exist. This is a separate requirement from the Charter requirement that all City departments file an annual report.
F26:
The Ethics Commission, though its staff, can catalog information reported elsewhere that is relevant for supplemental understanding of information currently reported locally. Links to this information would be a logical addition to the Ethics Commission web site.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
The Ethics Commission should determine information reported elsewhere that is relevant for supplemental understanding of information currently reported locally, and provide links to it on the Ethics Commission web site, if it cannot be imported and posted. The Jury found instances of Ethics Commission proposals to reduce protections against pay-to- play politics, reduce requirements for full disclosure of spending to influence City decisions, and relaxed standards regarding post-employment which did not explain how the proposal would further the purposes of the underlying law.48
F27:
The Charter requires that proposals to amend campaign finance and ethics laws explain how the change will assist in furthering the purpose of the law. The Ethics Commission proposals have not included any statements showing that its proposals will 48 For example, see the proposal from 2010 on contractor contributions discussed at the Oct 18, 2010 Ethics Commission meeting, and the memo with draft legislation at http://www.sfethics.org/files/memo_to_EC_re_proposed_changes_10.6.10_packet.pdf 26 further the purposes of the law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R27:
When a bill is proposed or passed to amend campaign finance and ethics laws, it should specify how it "furthers the purposes of this Chapter".49 And finally, the Jury believes the appearance of impropriety may be even more corrosive to public trust in government than actual criminal wrongdoing. Why? Because actual wrongdoing can get prosecuted, while it seems that nothing is ever done about things that "just look bad." The conflict of interest law stresses the importance of appearances. “Government decisions should be, and should appear to be, made on a fair and impartial basis.”50 This theme shows up repeatedly in the law, as well as in related case law.
F29:
The Findings and Declarations of Proposition J clearly articulate many public concerns with role of money in politics and should be re-adopted, perhaps adapted to be part of the general conflict of interest law - Chapter 2 of Article III of the C&GCC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R29:
That the Ethics Commission hold a hearing on "Proposition J Revisited" to consider how some of its concepts apply today and whether the "public 53 From the Ethics Commission meeting minutes 4/14/2003: (Staff) explained that Proposition J, which places limits on gifts, future employment and campaign contributions, and which is currently part of the C&GCC, is now redundant because the goals of Proposition J are either (a) already addressed in the proposed conflict of interest amendments, or (b) scheduled to be addressed by proposed amendments to be considered in Item VIII at tonight’s meeting. Motion 03-04-14-7 (Melbostad/Garcia): Moved, seconded, and unanimously passed (4-0): that the Commission adopt the proposed staff recommendation to delete Proposition J from the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code. 29 benefit" definition includes elements that should be incorporated into sections of the C&GCC54, and specifically consider offering amendments to C&GCC which re- incorporate its Findings and Declarations into current San Francisco law, and to consider placing these amendments on the ballot. The Jury’s examination of lobbying contacts for 2013 found that only a small fraction of lobbying involves city contracts while nine out of ten lobbyist contacts involve development projects which would be within the “public benefit” definition, and which fall outside the ban on contractor contributions 30 RESPONSE MATRIX
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Jury recommends a contract with the Fair Political Practices Commission for at least a two-year pilot basis to enforce both state and related San Francisco law violations. Administrative Penalties The Commission staff is tasked with monitoring most of the election cycle filings disclosures and auditing individual candidates and committees. This area has grown in complexity since the inception of the Commission. As outlined in the 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report on the Ethics Commission, the system for imposing fines and penalties upon individuals and Committees appeared arbitrary and deficient. There were enormous differences in fines assessed in similar cases and often huge differences between the fines initially proposed and those assessed at final settlement. Arbitrary enforcement creates the impression that the penalty is tied to the status of the alleged violator rather than to the violation itself. In some cases, low-level penalties have been levied against high-ranking City appointees while citizen activists have faced enforcement penalties significantly higher for lesser offenses. In July 2013, the Commission adopted policies to establish fixed penalties for certain campaign finance violations.24 Forfeitures Forfeitures are potential penalties for certain campaign finance violations - the wrongful money received is to be paid directly over to the City through the Ethics Commission unless reduced or waived by the Commission. Circumstances that would result in forfeitures include: §1.114(e)—Taking money into campaign account if contributor crosses $100 threshold without disclosures. §1.114(f)—Exceeding campaign contribution limits §1.126(d)—receiving contributions from City contractors, their officers or board members (applies only to sitting officeholders receiving contributions). §1.126 (a) and (b)—Receiving funds that originate from an improper donor. such as a corporation or an individual "maxed out", but are “laundered” through others. The Jury notes the new policies for fixed penalties call for forfeiture in the case of §1.114 violations.
R6a:
The Commission should proactively look at ways to track back 501(c) (3) &(4) money to real donors before the start of campaigns where this kind of money will be important; its true source should be identified.
R6b:
The Commission should propose ordinance amendments to require disclaimers in mailings, ads, door hangers and other voter outreach materials funded by committees whose individual donors are not identified to the satisfaction of a reasonable person which states, “this is paid for by (insert organization name) funded by anonymous donors in this campaign cycle”.
R17a:
The Ethics Commission staff should collect the official calendars prepared under the Sunshine Ordinance monthly, convert them to electronic form and post them online.
R17b:
The City Attorney and the Ethics Commission ensure that those officials subject to the calendar requirement, and their administrative staff, be trained on the law’s requirements.
R21:
The Board of Supervisors should provide the Commissioners an Executive Secretary separate from the existing Commission’s employee base who will, among other duties, prepare the Commission’s agendas, maintain minutes, lists of complaints, serve as a liaison for public input and interested persons meetings and assist a Commission member to be the parliamentarian.
R24:
The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should request an annual written report from the Ethics Commission that meets the standards set out in the Charter for annual reviews of the effectiveness of the City’s laws. This report should be posted on the Ethics Commission web site. Throughout this report, we have catalogued information that is filed and publicly disclosed. There is a wide range of information that appears useful to the public. However, without at least some audit and review, the public cannot be confident of its accuracy, and the filers have little incentive to ensure the correctness of their filings. 25
R25:
The Ethics Commission should begin to focus staff resources on monitoring and auditing other items within the Ethics Commission jurisdiction unrelated to campaigns such as the following ordinances: Conflict of Interest, Governmental Ethics, The Lobbyist Ordinance, Campaign Consultant Ordinance, and the Sunshine Ordinance. Information reported elsewhere can provide another layer of understanding to local reports. For example, the FPPC received filings for years on races for political party Central Committee slots that are now being filed locally, but the prior filings are relevant to understanding local politics as well. The FPPC receives campaign filings from incumbent San Francisco officeholders seeking state office, which shows their current campaign fundraising while making decisions that may be important to their contributors. Other items might include reports on enforcement actions involving San Francisco officials and entities actively involved in San Francisco lobbying and campaigns or doing business with San Francisco; federal actions that debar or institute limited denial of participation in federal contracts resulting from federal investigations.
R28:
That the Commission hold hearings, whether through their committees or in the full Commission, to ask the public to report matters that appear improper, then call the responsible officials before the Commission to account for and defend their actions. Coda: Proposition J Case Study How The Proposition J Law Changed to Lessen Ethical Protections If you blinked, you missed this one. Passed in a landslide in 2000, it was quietly repealed three years later. Proposition J was called "Taxpayer Protection."51 It regulated behavior of public officials, barring them from receiving a "personal or campaign advantage" (e.g. contributions, gifts, employment) from anyone who gained a "public benefit" by action of the public official. This prohibition continued for two years after the official left office. It barred campaign contributions, gifts, and potential employment in many instances. No one stood against this proposition—there was no argument against it in the Voter's Guide and 49 e.g. The state is required to do the same thing when amending the Political Reform Act. It makes a conclusory pro forma finding by inserting a section: “The Legislature finds and declares that this bill furthers the purposes of the Political Reform Act of 1974 within the meaning of subdivision (a) of Section 81012 of the Government Code.” We would hope to see some actual findings. C&GCC §3.200(e) 51 Proposition J added Article XX to Chapter 16 of the Administrative Code. See
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Housing development in the last decade has fallen far short of regional need targets. New production overwhelmingly delivered market rate units despite housing need targets for a broader income spectrum. This has reduced the number of housing opportunities affordable to the majority of citizens.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors convene a hearing this calendar year to review the final report from the Mayor’s Housing Task Force and ensure that policy recommendations improve the relationship between Market Rate and Affordable Housing to reflect the economic diversity of the City, and include annual monitoring of regional housing achievement numbers as defined by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element.
F2:
Housing construction for Middle Income households is not meeting regional housing targets. Local government programs to address the situation are limited. Household includes all of the people who occupy a housing unit, family related, unrelated or single. Briefing Book, slide 17 46 Briefing Book, slide 54 47 http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Families-exodus-leaves-S-F-whiter-less-diverse-3393637.php 48 Other factors include urban density, safety, schools, and open space. Please see Appendix 4 for a listing of various proposals found in the literature to increase housing supply. 17
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Jury recommends that MOHCD articulate strategies to improve achievement of regional housing targets for Middle Income households and establish incremental targets by year. The Jury also recommends that MOHCD report annually to the Board of Supervisors on progress in achieving these targets and include best practice research from other municipalities about Middle Income policy solutions. 18 2. The Housing Trust Fund The Housing Trust Fund (HTF) resulted from passage of Proposition C in 2012 with approval by 65% of the voters. The HTF receives appropriations from the City’s General Fund meant to provide a stable source of funding “established … to support creating, acquiring and rehabilitating Affordable Housing and promoting affordable home ownership programs in the City.”50 The HTF is expected to provide $1.33B over 20 years in support of this objective.51 The first year allocation (FY 2013/14) is for $20M, and the initial budget was structured such that MOHCD will use 70 percent of HTF monies to provide local financing for the construction and major rehabilitation of affordable multifamily housing.52 It is also a Charter requirement that MOHCD dedicate $15 million in the first five years of the Housing Trust Fund to “Housing Stabilization” and “Downpayment Loan Assistance” programs. The projected expenditures from the HTF for the current and next fiscal years are: SF Housing Trust Fund - Proposed FY2013-14 & FY2014-15 Budget Projected FY Projected FY Program Area 2013-14 Uses 2014-15 Uses $M $M Downpayment Assistance Loan Programs $2.0 $3.0 Housing Stabilization $2.8 $3.1 Complete Neighborhood Infrastructure $0.2 $1.0 Affordable Housing Development $13.8 $14.5 Program Delivery $1.2 $1.2 TOTAL HTF $20.0 $22.8 Source: MOHCD, HTF Budget Final Public Version POST HEARING, Oct, 2013 Table 4 - HTF Budget It is important to note that the passage of Proposition C was for “the creation, acquisition, and rehabilitation of rental and ownership housing affordable to households earning up to 120% of the Area Median Income.”53 The Redevelopment Agency funding stream it was meant to replace was, in general, restricted to developments up to 80% of AMI. The HTF is more flexible and can be used to provide financing for projects supporting moderate income populations. SF Charter, Sec 16.110 51 Refer to
F3:
Housing Authority properties may require stabilization funds or other gap financing measures to successfully enable the public-private partnership strategy agreed to by stakeholders in the Re-envisioning plan. The City’s Housing Trust Fund could be used to provide funding resources to help support the Re-envisioning plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Jury recommends that as Housing Trust Fund (HTF) funds are allocated to Housing Authority properties, MOHCD and the Mayor document a funding analysis for the allocation and the impact these disbursements may have on MOHCD Affordable Housing goals and programs to the Board of Supervisors and the public in the year of encumbrance. Reports should include annual updates on repayment. Re-envisioning; pg 17 55 San Francisco Charter, Section 16.110.d.1. – Housing Trust Fund - Uses of the Housing Trust Fund 56 Administrative Code Section 1.60 20 3. Affordable Housing Documents and Data Availability The process of developing a single Affordable Housing unit depends on a series of decisions impacted by regional growth objectives, choices and availability of funding, and local neighborhood considerations that often lead to passionate housing policy debates. The interest of the public in San Francisco to increase funding for Affordable Housing development was evident with the passage of Prop C, the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance. The Jury feels that the public is best served when easy access to strategy, goals and progress data is provided. Transparency will help assure that the Affordable Housing development agenda is on track and help provide the foundation for orderly discussions about policy. The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development has a good record for managing the delivery of new development and Inclusionary units, including comparative achievement with other regional municipalities.57 Not only has the Housing Division been a leader in creating Affordable Housing stock, the Community Development Division provides grants and support services to disadvantaged populations in the City. During this investigation, however, the Jury found deficiencies in the availability of public documentation, including policy, strategy and program information, and performance measures. This lack of attention to public communications can potentially sidetrack the overall MOHCD agenda and erode public confidence. As MOHCD steps up to their expanded role, what follows are public transparency and communication issues that cause the Jury concern. Website With increasing public focus on housing, the MOHCD website needs significant improvement in navigation and content management. The agency has over 50 staff positions and should be capable of resourcing this task.
F4:
Public information on the City’s Affordable Housing strategy and operations is difficult to find on the MOHCD website. News, reports and documents related to Agency responsibilities are scattered or posted under obscure sections. Many documents and links are outdated and the site is poorly organized for seeking portfolio, project activity and operational reporting information. Budget Analyst Affordable Housing Report 2012, pg.19 21
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The general public In addition to certified income statements required by MOHCD, the developer partner can review and deny lottery winners based on developer partner property management criteria.72 All denials have to be reviewed and approved by MOHCD. The property manager’s list of criteria for denial can include: Inappropriate Household Size Insufficient Income to Pay Rent Credit/Bankruptcy History Eviction History Criminal History Some of these criteria have implications for fair housing. As the number of high-end inclusionary rental projects increased, there were instances of stricter rejection criteria used by property managers beyond those prescribed by BMR Program guidelines.73 Federal fair housing laws require that all applicants (for both market rate and BMR units) be regarded equally in terms of the right to occupancy. However, agents using more stringent screening criteria, such as an applicant’s credit history, have created situations restricting access to BMR units in populations MOHCD would consider “qualified”. Unequal access may also be compounded by marketing deficiencies of affordable opportunities to disadvantaged populations and neighborhoods. This includes poor advertising outreach and impediments in the application process, such as language and accessibility. The burden presented by language issues has been placed on developer partners. Their effectiveness in providing interpretive services is too often constrained by budget and priorities. Recently MOHCD began working with nonprofit and other housing support agencies to make key consumer documents available in several languages. A recent report by MOHCD74 indicates a distribution of ethnic groups in BMR rental units that differs significantly from citywide percentages of similar low income populations. Procedures Manual, pp. 52-53. Lagos, Marisa, “San Francisco housing dreams haunted by debt,” San Francisco Chronicle, 5 December 2013. 74 2013-2018 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2013 32 “Alongside a decline in African American and white low-income populations, the City has seen a slight increase in the population of low-income Asian renters and a large increase in low- income Latino residents. Considering the overall growth in low-income Latino residents, the significant under-representation of Latino households in new affordable housing developments warrants concern. 14% of the City’s very low-income households are Latino/Hispanic but only 7% of the residents in new MOH housing are Latino/Hispanic” 75 Certain actions are being undertaken by MOHCD to address this issue. In addition to monitoring developer partner compliance where possible, MOHCD is playing an advocacy role to relax screening criteria that contributes to equalizing BMR participation among various disadvantaged groups. For example, the office is working with partners to encourage a more flexible approach to looking at criminal and eviction histories, including sunset periods for consideration of negative events. Recently passed criminal history nondisclosure legislation (“Ban The Box”) by the Board of Supervisors may also help to facilitate access for certain otherwise qualified individuals.76 Continuing progress also requires MOHCD staffing levels adequate for training and consistent monitoring. Sensitivity toward fair access to BMR rental housing is not adequately conveyed to project partners in the Procedures Manual. Awareness training for developer partners is another key strategy to improving qualification fairness and the ethnic occupancy statistics for BMR rentals. A similar access problem exists with BMR Ownership housing. African Americans were particularly underrepresented and in explaining this underrepresentation of African Americans in BMR housing, and declining representation in affordable housing, one stakeholder states, “There is a general lack of knowledge about how to apply for housing and a perception that the lottery system will not benefit African Americans because they are such a small part of the population. Credit issues are another large barrier to applying for housing to the point where people assume they won’t pass the credit test before they even try. Past criminal histories are also a barrier no matter how long ago the crime was committed.” 77 Ownership programs have down payment percentage requirements. These thresholds may also be a contributing factor. One consideration for MOHCD would be to subsidize down payment requirements to a lower threshold for applicants that is in alignment with the Federal Housing Authority standard of 3%. Ibid, pg. 145 76 http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=4762 77 Impediments, pg. 153. 33
R4a:
To keep the public and the Board of Supervisors informed on a timely basis, the Jury recommends that the MOHCD website be made much more user friendly with improved navigation and better public access to content.
R4b:
The Jury recommends that MOHCD immediately designate a website manager responsible for technical design and ease-of-use, plus content management including timely posting of documents and metrics reports that are in the public interest. Public Reports The current MOHCD 5-year Consolidated Plan 2010-2014 58 is over 200 pages long. Required by HUD, the document is a valuable resource for housing experts and is comprehensive in explaining strategic goals and objectives of local housing policy, program objectives and challenges, along with specific goal metrics. Other policy presentations found on the website, like the 2012 Briefing Book59, further analyze and discuss policy detail. These materials, however, are lengthy and technically oriented. There are few documents that are accessible or readable by the general public. The Agency needs to create “public friendly” summaries that help the public understand the goals, objectives and the complex environment of Affordable Housing production and public assistance program management. The Jury contrasts this lack of easily understood public material to the efforts of New York City. The New York New Marketplace Plan 2003-201460 covers the complex effort that produced 167,000 units of affordable housing during the Bloomberg administration. The Jury found this document to be a straightforward analysis of the NYC Affordable Housing program with simplified housing policy, strategy and program explanations, including funding details for specific projects. MOHCD has not published an Annual Report since 2009. Although the Jury was told that one was being prepared for publication in Spring of this year, a draft was not available to the Jury in time for review. MOHCD needs to make their Annual Report a routine annual communication to the public and assure it is easily accessed on the website. The New York Report is an excellent template for improving the MOHCD Annual Report on Affordable Housing. There is also a lack of numbers on Affordable Housing plans, production and goal accomplishment on the MOHCD website. MOHCD works with the Planning Department to provide Affordable Housing construction numbers for the annual San Francisco Housing 58 http://sf-moh.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4605 59 http://sf-moh.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=6977 60 http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/HPD-Annual-2013-FINAL.pdf 22 Inventory. However, the 2012 Report was a year late due to staffing issues at Planning, and there was no good data source for Affordable Housing numbers other than making a direct request to MOHCD staff. Citywide housing construction forecasts are in the Quarterly Pipeline Report also published by the Planning Department. However, Affordable Housing data is not a separate part of this report and an Affordable Housing pipeline spreadsheet had to be requested from MOHCD personnel in order to view new construction and Inclusionary forecasts. Chicago produces a comprehensive quarterly Pipeline Progress Report on affordable housing.61 It includes project updates on affordable rental units, including rehabilitation and new construction, homeownership fairs, and policy and legislative issues, with detailed data reporting every three months.
F5:
MOHCD has not provided consistent, timely, or easy-to-read documentation on the City’s Affordable Housing strategy, goals and progress, and has not published an Annual Report since 2009.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5a:
The Jury recommends MOHCD publish an Annual Report on their website by March of each year. This report should be oriented to a general audience and include information highlights and measures that communicate achievement towards City Affordable Housing program goals.
R5b:
The Jury recommends MOHCD publish a quarterly Affordable Housing Pipeline Report within a month of each quarter’s closing. This may be done within the Planning Department’s Quarterly Pipeline Report, but should also include quarterly Affordable Housing program progress highlights. Metrics and Leverage Reporting The lack of consistently available factual data on Affordable Housing progress and forecasts has contributed to erroneous reporting in press articles62 that end up eroding public confidence in the performance of both MOHCD and the Planning Department. 61 “2009-2013 Affordable Housing Plan, 2013 Third Quarter Progress Report”; http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/FullReport20133.pdf 62 See http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/san-francisco-housing-trends-make-it-difficult-for-modest-earners-to-find-a- place-to-live/Content?oid=2629169 Per MOHCD “note that this statistic “Number of Affordable Units that Those Fees Could Finance” is inaccurate. MOHCD’s average per unit subsidy for an affordable housing development is between $150,000 to $200,000 per unit. Based on the $200k/unit estimate, $37 million can support the creation of approximately 185 units [not 3,995]. The Chronicle also got this fact incorrect in a recent article.” 23 MOHCD and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) collect and report metrics to HUD in their annual Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).63 There are many Affordable Housing performance measures that the Jury finds useful and informative in this report that can easily be extracted and repurposed for public reporting.64 A new report mandated by the Board of Supervisors in 2012, known as The Dashboard, is a hybrid of the Housing Inventory and the Pipeline reports meant for policy makers. This report has various challenges including tabulation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment achievement targets and inclusion of the City defined “Middle Income” category. Production of the report is labor intensive, but new staffing in the Planning Department is expected by NEW YORK CITY’s midyear. MOHCD and Planning must not Financing Leverage defer the commitment to compile this report and update it on a regular schedule. Leverage is a metric that helps illustrate whether public funds are being managed for maximum impact. Leverage is a measure that indicates the capital commitment the City makes to fund a project and depends on the availability of multiple funding sources. This graphic shows the leverage that New York City was able to exercise through their access to local capital markets65. The Jury feels that highlighting the effectiveness of local resources for Affordable Housing by reporting leverage is a good way to get public support. Although this measure has its limitations66, the Jury found leverage calculations already on the Affordable Housing Loan Committee’s Cost Comparison spreadsheets. As each Housing Agency and capital market is different, the Jury is not suggesting that the NYC leverage number is an appropriate target for San Francisco. Rather that this metric should be a standard component of MOHCD’s public reporting. For example on pg. 29 of the 2012-2013 CAPER, “Goal 4: Families and individuals have safe, healthy & affordable housing”, the Jury found many important performance measures worth sharing. See
F6:
MOHCD lacks discipline in posting and providing website access to their Affordable Housing metrics and program results reporting.
Related Recommendations (3)
R6a:
The Jury recommends MOHCD track and publish metrics with greater frequency using measures based on pipeline and HUD CAPER reporting that help the public to assess the progress of new development and housing support program efforts.
R6b:
The Jury recommends MOHCD work with the Planning Department to formulate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) specifying timing and responsibility for the preparation and publication of Affordable Housing pipeline data in the Quarterly Pipeline Report. A new report commonly referred to as The Dashboard should be completed. An effort to publish these reports on SF Open Data should be prioritized.
R6c:
The Jury recommends MOHCD establish a metric for accounting public contributions per development project. This financing leverage measure should be reported in the MOHCD Annual Report by project type. New Development Project Updates The Jury was interested in looking at multi-family new development project information over the lifecycle of a project. However, case file documents on completed projects, with the exception of Affordable Housing Loan Committee documents, could not be easily produced by MOHCD in response to a request from the Jury. The inability of MOHCD to collect documents was a concern for the Jury. It calls into question internal record keeping procedures for completed projects and public transparency. The Jury was also surprised to find that no routine post-project evaluations were undertaken by MOHCD, a best practice in project management methodology. A good model for project status and document availability is Boston’s website, as illustrated by the screen capture on the following page.67 67 The Boston Redevelopment Authority’s Projects website is organized by project with access to key documents http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/projects/development-projects 25 Project Status Document Access Figure 4 - Project Page Example
F7:
Project phase documentation related to MOHCD new development projects are not readily available for public inspection.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Jury recommends MOHCD use their website to post up-to-date housing development project information and provide access to key milestone documents as is done on the Boston Redevelopment Authority website. Anecdotes relayed to the Jury during our investigation indicate that MOHCD has done a very good job of facilitating projects and has successfully worked to sustain a vibrant Affordable Housing community. The Jury notes that the public is also a stakeholder in defining Affordable Housing policy and the lack of readable public documents and failure to provide easy and timely access to data on their website is a serious deficiency. The recent focus on achieving the 10,000 affordable unit goal and with other responsibilities being taken on by MOHCD, the Jury urges MOHCD to prioritize their efforts to improve their public reporting profile and management of their website. With expanded leadership duties comes increased responsibility. 4. Fair Access to BMR Affordable Housing Opportunities MOHCD’s BMR (Below Market Rate) program offers ownership and rental housing opportunities to qualified applicants. The jury looked into the details of this program to better understand how the process worked for applicants and how fair access to housing opportunities were being managed. The current inventory of BMR properties includes: Table 5- BMR Units by Program BMR PROGRAM Ownership Rental Total BMR Inclusionary Housing (IH) 874 622 1,496 Program BMR Condo Conversion (CC) 318 0 318 Program Former SF Redevelopment Agency 900 850 1,750 BMR (Inclusionary) Program GRAND TOTALS 2,092 1,472 3,564 The current pipeline through 2016 for BMR units is: Table 6 - BMR Pipeline Closing Pipeline Pipeline Closing Service Type Fiscal Year Closing 2015/16 Total 2013/14 2014/15 (Estimates) Resale Units 32 38 40 110 BMR IH, CC, LEP New Ownership Units BMR 100 221 Not available 321 New Rental Units 282 194 100 576 BMR IH Re-Rental Units 15 18 21 54 BMR IH GRAND TOTALS 429 471 161 1,061 The pipeline reflects a 30% increase in the expected number of units in the program with most of the units coming from Inclusionary Housing projects. BMR housing is primarily aimed at middle-income households, reflecting City policy to help maintain a diverse workforce within the City. Properties are targeted toward applicants in the 50- 120% AMI range. It includes both rental and ownership properties. The latter are generally offered to the upper end of this AMI range. As previously discussed, a decrease in middle- income households has accompanied the City’s overall population increase just as more types of housing normally priced toward this category have gone out of reach.68 Inclusionary Housing units are a major component of the BMR Program. This requires working with developers of market rate projects, which can present challenges for MOHCD in enforcing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance compliance69 and ongoing monitoring of the BMR Program. It requires MOHCD to track all new projects and units being constructed under the Inclusionary Ordinance, approve compliance plans, provide regulations training to developer partners, and monitor all aspects of occupancy and BMR implementation. From interviews with staff and housing developers, the Jury learned that the occupancy process for Inclusionary BMR units can take more than six months for a major project. This includes marketing project units, screening applicants, conducting a lottery and final qualification of lottery winners prior to tenant leasing. BMR Occupancy Process The above graphic describes the process for BMR rental projects. Ownership projects will be slightly different, but in terms of marketing, initial application and qualification, they are similar. Figure 5 - BMR Process 68 City & County of San Francisco, Joint Presentation on Housing, 2012 69 Costs for the Inclusionary Housing Program are self-funded; administrative costs in recent years have ranged between $650,000 - $700,000 annually.. Marketing MOHCD works with developers and their property management partners (“developer partners”) to market BMR units in accordance with fair housing policy goals. Project partners are required to submit a marketing plan to MOHCD for approval.70 Submitted plans are evaluated for diverse neighborhood outreach, standardized language describing eligibility criteria for available units, a media plan including at least five diverse local publications, and listing of ownership units on the local Multiple Listing Service. MOHCD offers a “marketing template” to developer partners, offers training to project employees, and requires contracting with Inclusionary Housing consultants. Effectiveness of marketing campaigns are not regularly evaluated by MOHCD. The entire process places a significant time burden and cost on project partners, which can lead to deficiencies in ensuring fair access to affordable housing. Marketing to potential applicants is also done through the MOHCD website using an internal subscription email service. This allows for timely notification, especially for re-rental opportunities. The notice provides basic information about project vacancies, including rent and application criteria, and contact information for submitting applications. Currently there are over 16,000 subscribers to this service.
F8:
MOHCD’s current procedures for marketing BMR units places too much responsibility upon developers without sufficient guidance. Additionally, results of marketing campaigns are not regularly evaluated for effectiveness.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8a:
The Jury recommends MOHCD provide developer partners with more comprehensive materials in the Marketing template, including model BMR program marketing plans, advertising samples, marketing templates in multiple languages, directories of approved consultant and public agency partners, and training materials including web delivered training videos, to set clearly understood minimum standards for outreach.
R8b:
The Jury recommends MOHCD implement regular evaluations of marketing effectiveness and marketing materials by surveying applicants to indicate source of notification by housing opportunity. City And County Of San Francisco, Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program Monitoring And Procedures Manual 2013, Pp 72-74 29 The BMR Application The application process for a BMR rental unit is time-consuming and complex. The MOHCD website does not provide clear instructions for an applicant. Potential applicants who wish to get a detailed understanding of the process are referred to a download of an 80-page Procedures Manual that was written for use by MOHCD staff and developer partners. All BMR program applicants must complete and submit a preliminary application to the property agents of the developer partner. Each project or available unit requires a separate submission that often requires a personal visit to the agent’s office and completion of a paper form to enter the lottery. All application follow ups or inquiries are also done with individual project agents. Compare this process to much more efficient and accurate internet resources available to applicants for Affordable Housing in New York City. New York’s Department of Public Housing utilizes a similar business process, but provides a clearer web-based interface for document submission, application management and status tracking via an Affordable Housing Portal. Figure 6 - NYC Web Portal MOHCD is currently in the planning and design for their own portal website71 that is similar in concept to New York’s. Its implementation will be more user-friendly and efficient for both applicants and developer partners to manage a number of application processing and BMR Program tasks. Creating a database tool becomes even more important given the anticipated 71 “MOHCD Single Family Programs Data Tracking and Administration Business Requirements”; 9/24/13 30 growth of the BMR program and increasing compliance monitoring responsibilities.
F9:
The process of applying for an Affordable Housing opportunity is poorly explained and not easily managed on the current MOHCD website. Significant burdens are placed on applicants to manage individual applications for each opening through the process. Similarly, substantial cost and processing burdens are placed on developer partners using inefficient tools to comply with MOHCD procedures. As the portfolio of Affordable Housing properties grows, economies of scale for managing and processing applications will be required.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9a:
MOHCD should provide applicants clear, concise materials on the application process, and conduct and evaluate applicant feedback satisfaction surveys after each new major development project comes on-line.
R9b:
MOHCD should prioritize the completion of their Single Family Program Data and Administration System. MOHCD should measure and report on the cost effectiveness of process improvements and efficiencies from implementation of this system in their Annual Report. Application Screening To assure fairness in selection, a lottery conducted by MOHCD is used for initial elimination of applicants. Final consideration and qualification occurs only within the pool of lottery winners. Anyone who thinks they meet the eligibility income and residence criteria may enter the lottery with submission of their preliminary application, as vetting a large number of applicants for eligibility prior to the lottery would be cost prohibitive. For one inclusionary project with 49 units, there were over 4,000 applications and similar unit to application ratios for other projects have been reported in the press. The sheer volume of submitted applications is a major issue and is expected to grow. The lottery allows the application process to be split into two stages with associated personal information from applicants: 1. pre-lottery application – preliminary qualification questions and contact details only are recorded for inclusion in the lottery, 2. detailed financial application - for lottery winners, where personal and financial data is verified for final qualification prior to lease signing 31 Lottery entrants are placed into preferential pools based on the following priorities: 1. SF Redevelopment Agency Certificate of Preference (COP) Holders: These are households displaced by Redevelopment Agency activity in the Western Addition and Hunters Point in the 1960’s. 2. Displaced San Francisco Tenant COP Holders: per recent legislation, certain private market households in San Francisco who were evicted under the Ellis Act 3. Persons who either live or work in San Francisco 4. The general public In addition to certified income statements required by MOHCD, the developer partner can review and deny lottery winners based on developer partner property management criteria.72 All denials have to be reviewed and approved by MOHCD. The property manager’s list of criteria for denial can include: Inappropriate Household Size Insufficient Income to Pay Rent Credit/Bankruptcy History Eviction History Criminal History Some of these criteria have implications for fair housing. As the number of high-end inclusionary rental projects increased, there were instances of stricter rejection criteria used by property managers beyond those prescribed by BMR Program guidelines.73 Federal fair housing laws require that all applicants (for both market rate and BMR units) be regarded equally in terms of the right to occupancy. However, agents using more stringent screening criteria, such as an applicant’s credit history, have created situations restricting access to BMR units in populations MOHCD would consider “qualified”. Unequal access may also be compounded by marketing deficiencies of affordable opportunities to disadvantaged populations and neighborhoods. This includes poor advertising outreach and impediments in the application process, such as language and accessibility. The burden presented by language issues has been placed on developer partners. Their effectiveness in providing interpretive services is too often constrained by budget and priorities. Recently MOHCD began working with nonprofit and other housing support agencies to make key consumer documents available in several languages. A recent report by MOHCD74 indicates a distribution of ethnic groups in BMR rental units that differs significantly from citywide percentages of similar low income populations. Procedures Manual, pp. 52-53. Lagos, Marisa, “San Francisco housing dreams haunted by debt,” San Francisco Chronicle, 5 December 2013. 74 2013-2018 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2013 32 “Alongside a decline in African American and white low-income populations, the City has seen a slight increase in the population of low-income Asian renters and a large increase in low- income Latino residents. Considering the overall growth in low-income Latino residents, the significant under-representation of Latino households in new affordable housing developments warrants concern. 14% of the City’s very low-income households are Latino/Hispanic but only 7% of the residents in new MOH housing are Latino/Hispanic” 75 Certain actions are being undertaken by MOHCD to address this issue. In addition to monitoring developer partner compliance where possible, MOHCD is playing an advocacy role to relax screening criteria that contributes to equalizing BMR participation among various disadvantaged groups. For example, the office is working with partners to encourage a more flexible approach to looking at criminal and eviction histories, including sunset periods for consideration of negative events. Recently passed criminal history nondisclosure legislation (“Ban The Box”) by the Board of Supervisors may also help to facilitate access for certain otherwise qualified individuals.76 Continuing progress also requires MOHCD staffing levels adequate for training and consistent monitoring. Sensitivity toward fair access to BMR rental housing is not adequately conveyed to project partners in the Procedures Manual. Awareness training for developer partners is another key strategy to improving qualification fairness and the ethnic occupancy statistics for BMR rentals. A similar access problem exists with BMR Ownership housing. African Americans were particularly underrepresented and in explaining this underrepresentation of African Americans in BMR housing, and declining representation in affordable housing, one stakeholder states, “There is a general lack of knowledge about how to apply for housing and a perception that the lottery system will not benefit African Americans because they are such a small part of the population. Credit issues are another large barrier to applying for housing to the point where people assume they won’t pass the credit test before they even try. Past criminal histories are also a barrier no matter how long ago the crime was committed.” 77 Ownership programs have down payment percentage requirements. These thresholds may also be a contributing factor. One consideration for MOHCD would be to subsidize down payment requirements to a lower threshold for applicants that is in alignment with the Federal Housing Authority standard of 3%. Ibid, pg. 145 76 http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=4762 77 Impediments, pg. 153. 33
F10:
MOHCD does not provide clear and concise expectations to project partners with regard to broad community outreach and the impact of applicant denials to BMR program goals. This can create potential impediments to fair housing choice for underrepresented ethnic groups.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10a:
The Jury recommends MOHCD work to improve the ethnic diversity of residents in their BMR programs and monitor progress in mitigating any institutional barriers to fair housing choice. Data on representational statistics should be collected and evaluated at regular intervals, preferably every 2 years. Any statistical disparities should be reported to the Board of Supervisors.
R10b:
The Jury recommends MOHCD work with developer partners to standardize criteria used for BMR rental application denials. Strategies to reduce minimum down payment requirement denials for BMR ownership units should be given consideration. Recertification and Monitoring BMR tenants are required to be recertified annually for eligibility in order to have their leases renewed. An existing tenant’s household income is allowed increase up to twice the target AMI over time for the project to accommodate increases from job promotions. The developer partner is required to do recertification, and decisions to deny renewal must be approved by MOHCD.78 Other aspects of qualification, such as increased household size, can also block renewal. In 2012 the Legislative and Budget Analyst Report found that MOHCD had not monitored the ongoing eligibility of residents in certain inclusionary rental units for ten years.79 Efforts improved after personnel shifts occurred at MOHCD, but uneven monitoring extends to other projects as well, including at least one project facing renovation and expansion.80 The 2012 Budget Analyst report also recommended MOHCD work with the Department of Building Inspection to receive notice of entitled units and require project partners to submit monitoring schedules in advance of project completion.81 However, there are bureaucratic obstacles to implementation of such procedures. In fact, getting the list of new projects that come under the Inclusionary program remains difficult and often requires MOHCD staff to manually 78 Procedures Manual, p. 54. Performance Audit, p. 76. Sabatini, Joshua, “Residents concerned about homes, rent as S.F. complex undergoes changes,” San Francisco Examiner, 5 January 2014. Performance Audit, p. 78. 34 cross-reference data from DBI. Last year, several Inclusionary Housing projects were not identified as such by the Planning Department and DBI. MOHCD was able to track down these errors. Had this detailed checking effort not been made, $1.5 million in affordable housing fees could have been overlooked.82 Double checking is time-intensive enough to be unsustainable at current staff levels as City housing project entitlements increase. The Budget Analyst Report also recommended establishment of a nominal per-unit monitoring fee to offset administrative costs to MOHCD. Monitoring fees are not yet in place, but are slated to be included in a future amendment of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
F11:
Errors in identifying Inclusionary Housing projects can affect the creation of BMR compliance plans. Issues with data accuracy from the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection impact the ability of MOHCD to approach inclusionary developers in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Jury recommends that the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection make internal process changes to improve the accuracy of data tagged as a new Affordable Housing project under the Inclusionary Housing Program. MOHCD estimate. 35