March 5, 2024

Las boletas ociales, boletas de muestra y otros materiales electorales están disponibles en español.

Para más información, visite la página Asistencia en español.

選務處提供中文版正式選票、選票樣本和其他選舉資料。欲知詳情，請查閱「中文選民服務」。

Makakukuha ng opisyal na mga balota, halimbawang mga balota at iba pang mga materyales para sa

eleksyon sa Filipino. Para sa impormasyon, tingnan ang pahinang Tulong sa Filipino.

Your vote goes a long way!

Cast your ballot by election day.

City and County of San Francisco

Department of Elections

Voter Information Pamphlet

• All registered voters receive

ballots by mail.

• To be counted, ballots returned

by mail must be postmarked by

Election Day, March 5. Ballots

returned in person must be hand-

delivered by 8 p.m. on Election

Day, March 5.

• Presidential and County Central

Committee contests listed on the

ballots reect the voters’ registered

political party preference.

(See pages 4–6 of this Pamphlet

for information on how to get

a different ballot or follow the

instructions in your ballot packet.)

• Any voter may choose to vote or

receive help at the City Hall Voting

Center or their polling place.

• Any voter may opt to access,

mark, and print an accessible,

screen-readable ballot at

sfelections.org/access.

March 5, 2024 Election

Election Highlights

Cast your ballot to help determine the future of your city, state, and country!

Please remind your friends and family to do the same.

Important Dates

February 5

The voting period begins with ballot mailing and the

opening of the City Hall Voting Center for registration

and voting services. 37 ofcial ballot drop boxes

are open in neighborhoods across San Francisco.

Accessible Vote-by-Mail (AVBM) portal is open at

sfelections.org/access.

February 20

Last day to register to vote or update registration

in time to receive a ballot by mail. After this

date, eligible residents can still register, update

registration, and vote in person at the City Hall

Voting Center or a polling place.

February 24/25 and March 2/3

The City Hall Voting Center is open on the two

weekends before Election Day from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Election Day, March 5

The City Hall Voting Center and 501 neighborhood

polling places are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

In every election, we hire over 2,000 poll workers –

many bilingual – to administer voting at city’s polling

places on Election Day. You can help your community

and earn up to $295! To apply, go to sfelections.org/pwa

or call (415) 554-4395.

Be a

Poll Worker

Please recycle

this pamphlet.

Candidate Statements of Qualifications

Candidate Information ..................................16

Voluntary Spending Limits...............................16

Party Endorsements ....................................17

Candidates for United States Representative ..............18

Candidates for State Senator ............................23

Candidates for State Assembly ..........................24

Candidates for Judge of the Superior Court, Seat 1 ........26

Candidates for Judge of the Superior Court, Seat 13 .......27

Local Ballot Measures

Words You Need to Know ...............................31

Local Ballot Measure and Argument Information ..........33

An Overview of San Francisco's Debt ....................34

A Affordable Housing Bonds ..........................36

Digest .........................................36

Proponent's, Opponent's, and Rebuttal Arguments ..38

Paid Arguments.................................40

B Police Officer Staffing Levels Conditioned

on Amending Existing or Future Tax Funding..........48

Digest .........................................48

Proponent's, Opponent's, and Rebuttal Arguments ..50

Paid Arguments.................................52

C Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption and

Office Space Allocation ............................56

Digest .........................................56

Proponent's, Opponent's, and Rebuttal Arguments ..58

Paid Arguments.................................60

D Changes to Local Ethics Laws.......................68

Digest .........................................68

Proponent's, Opponent's, and Rebuttal Arguments ..70

E Police Department Policies and Procedures ..........72

Digest .........................................72

Proponent's, Opponent's, and Rebuttal Arguments ..74

Paid Arguments.................................76

F Illegal Substance Dependence Screening and

Treatment for Recipients of City Public Assistance ....84

Digest .........................................84

Proponent's, Opponent's, and Rebuttal Arguments ..86

Paid Arguments.................................88

G Offering Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders .................92

Digest .........................................92

Proponent's Argument...........................93

Paid Arguments.................................94

Legal Text of Local Ballot Measures.....................100

Ballot Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

General Information

Election Highlights and Dates ........... (inside front cover)

Letter from the Director..................................2

Official Local and State Voter Guides ......................3

Ballot Simplification Committee...........................3

Elections Commission ...................................3

California Presidential Primaries ..........................4

Your March 5 Election Ballot .......................... 5–6

How to Request a Replacement Ballot.................. 5–6

Marking Your Ballot .................................. 5–6

Voter Bill of Rights ......................................7

Your Voter Record ......................................7

Ways to Vote by Mail ....................................8

Ways to Vote in Person ..................................9

San Francisco's Voting System ...........................9

Official Ballot Drop Boxes in San Francisco ...............10

Accessible Voting Resources............................12

Multilingual Voter Services..............................14

中文選民服務.........................................14

Asistencia en español para los electores .................14

Tulong para sa botante sa wikang Filipino.................14

မန္မာဘာသာျဖင့္ မ

ဲ

ေပးသူအတြက္ အကူအည............14

日本語による投票支援 ................................14

유권자를 위한 한국어 지원 .............................15

ความช

่

วยเหลือเป็นภาษาไทยแก่ผู้ลงคะแนนเสียง ............15

Dịch vụ/tài liệu hỗ trợ cử tri bằng tiếng Việt ................15

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Registration

and Voting in San Francisco .............................28

Registration FAQs ......................................28

Vote-by-Mail Ballot Delivery FAQs .......................29

Vote-by-Mail Ballot Return FAQs.........................29

In-Person Voting FAQs..................................30

Information About Prohibited Election Activities ..........122

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Be a Poll Worker....................... (inside front cover)

Contact the Department of Elections ..... (inside front cover)

Website of the Department of Elections.........(back cover)

Address of Your Polling Place .................(back cover)

Table of Contents

San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet

Published by the Department of Elections

City and County of San Francisco

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

City Hall, Room 48

San Francisco, CA 94102-4634

sfelections.org

Translations and layout/typesetting by InterEthnica

Printing by Toppan Merrill LLC

Voter Information Pamphlet – Consolidated Presidential Primary Election – March 5, 2024

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP2

sfelections.org

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

City Hall, Room 48, San Francisco, CA 94102

John Arntz, Director

Dear San Francisco Voter, January 10, 2024

A trusted source of information for all San Francisco voters regarding the March 5, 2024, Presidential Primary Election is this Voter

Information Pamphlet (VIP). Reviewing the VIP allows voters to determine whether their ballots will include candidates for president

and the options available to obtain ballots that list presidential candidates. The VIP also provides useful guidance for considering how

to vote on the local ballot measures.

Information on Voting for Candidates for President

Your voter registration record determines whether your ballot will include candidates for president. If your registration record includes

a preference for a qualied political party, your ballot will list that party’s candidates for president. If you declined to state a preference

for a political party, your ballot will not show candidates for president.

Voters can update their registration record online at registertovote.ca.gov or with a paper form to select a preference for a political

party and receive a ballot with that party’s candidates for president.

Voters with no party preference have additional options to receive ballots listing candidates for president for either the American

Independent, Democratic, or Libertarian parties. Voters need to request what is often called a “cross-over ballot” from the Department.

The VIP includes details on voters’ options to receive a cross-over ballot, as does the Department’s website at sfelections.org/primary.

Regardless of your party preference, your ballot will list contests for U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, State Senator, State Assembly

Member, Judges of the Superior Court, and state and local measures.

Information on Local Measures

Digests, or short summaries, of each local ballot appear in sections specic to each measure. The digests are reviewed and approved

by a group named the Ballot Simplication Committee. The Committee is a panel of volunteers with professional writing or teaching

experience who must use language that is clearly stated and impartial.

Each VIP also includes the legislative or legal text associated with each local measure. This means voters can read for themselves

how the measures would change local laws if the measures receive the necessary number of votes.

The VIP also includes “arguments” authored by other San Francisco voters and organizations. Each measure allows for one ofcial

supporting argument and one ofcial opposing argument, with accompanying rebuttal arguments. The VIP also includes “paid

arguments” which any San Francisco voter can submit for publication for and against local measures when paying specied fees.

Information on Candidates

You can review candidate qualication statements printed in the VIP that most federal, state, and judicial candidates submitted directly

to the Department. However, the VIP does not provide qualication statements from candidates for county central committees. Seats

on the committees are not considered elective ofces and instead determine the leadership of political parties on a local level.

Information on Voting

The Department’s website provides voters with reliable information on voting. To learn more about voting in this upcoming primary

election, visit sfelections.org/primary. Our website also provides a tool called the “Voter Portal” that guides voters with an easy way

to check their party preference, the status of your vote-by-mail ballot, the location of your polling place and ballot drop-off boxes, and

much more election information can be found at sfelections.org/voterportal.

You can also email us at [email protected], or call us at (415) 554-4375. If you write or call, someone from the Department will be

personally attentive to your questions and concerns. Our personnel are ready to answer your questions and provide election-related

information in English, Chinese, Spanish, and Filipino, as well as in hundreds of other languages via a telephone translation service.

Everyone in the Department is looking forward to providing you with the support and information you need to successfully participate in

the upcoming March 5, 2024, Presidential Primary Election!

Respectfully,

John Arntz, Director

English (415) 554-4375

Fax (415) 554-7344

TTY (415) 554-4386

中文 (415) 554-4367

Español (415) 554-4366

Filipino (415) 554-4310

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP3

The Ballot Simpliﬁcation Committee

Local voters created this Committee in 1997. The Committee holds public meetings before every election. In these

meetings, its volunteer members write summaries of local ballot measures. These summaries are then printed

in the Voter Information Pamphlet. They also write the Words You Need to Know and the Frequently Asked

Questions for the Voter Information Pamphlet. Current members of this Committee include:

Betty Packard, Chair

Nominated by the National Academy of

Television Arts and Sciences

Ruth Grace Wong

Nominated by the League of Women Voters

Christine Unruh

Nominated by the National Academy of

Television Arts and Sciences

Michele Anderson

Nominated by Pacic Media Workers Guild

Ana Flores, ex ofcio*

Deputy City Attorney

Jaime Huling Delaye, ex ofcio*

Deputy City Attorney

Bradley Russi, ex ofcio*

Deputy City Attorney

*By law, the City Attorney can speak at the Committee meetings but

cannot vote.

The Voter Information Pamphlet The Voter Information Guide

Ocial Local and State Voter Guides

At the start of every voting period, all local voters receive a Voter Information Pamphlet & Sample Ballot.

For statewide elections, voters also receive a Voter Information Guide. Here is how these guides compare:

Publishing Source San Francisco Department of Elections California Secretary of State

Guide Topics

Registration and voting methods,

local contests on the ballot

Registration and voting methods,

statewide contests on the ballot

Sample Ballot Included Not included

Language Options English, Chinese, Spanish, and Filipino

English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer,

Korean, Tagalog, Thai, Vietnamese

Format Options

• Regular/large print

• Audio on CD, USB, or National Library Service

cartridge by request

• PDF/HTML/XML/MP3 at sfelections.org/vip

• Regular/large print

• Audio (recording)/PDF/American Sign Language

(video) at voterguide.sos.ca.gov

Elections Commission

Local voters created this Commission in 2001. The Commission oversees public elections in San Francisco

and sets general policies for the Department of Elections. It also approves and assesses our election plans

for each election. Current members of this Commission include:

Robin M. Stone, President

Appointed by the District Attorney

Michelle Parker, Vice President

Appointed by the Board of Education

Lucy Bernholz

Appointed by the Treasurer

Cynthia Dai

Appointed by the City Attorney

Renita LiVolsi

Appointed by the Public Defender

Christopher Jerdonek (Hold-over member)

Appointed by the Board of Supervisors

Vacant

Appointed by the Mayor

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP4

California Presidential Primaries

There are six qualified political parties in California: the American Independent, Democratic, Green, Libertarian,

Peace and Freedom, and Republican parties. All six parties will hold their presidential primaries on March 5, 2024.

Each political party will allow voters who stated a preference for that party on their registration form to vote in its

presidential primary contest.

The American Independent, Democratic, and Libertarian parties will also allow voters who declined to provide a

political party preference to vote in their presidential primary contests.

Impact of Party Preference on March 5 Election Ballot Contests

If you registered to vote with a preference for a political party, you will automatically receive a ballot with that

party’s presidential primary candidates and County Central Committee candidates, if any. To receive a different

party’s ballot in this election, you must re-register to vote with a new party preference.

If you declined to provide a preference for a political party or you registered with an unqualified political party,

your default ballot will list neither presidential primary candidates nor County Central Committee candidates.

To receive a different ballot this election, you can do either of the following:

• Request a ballot with the presidential candidates of the American Independent, Democratic, or Libertarian parties.

• Re-register with a qualified political party preference to receive a ballot with that party’s presidential primary

candidates and County Central Committee candidates, if any.

Your March 5 ballot, regardless of your party preference, will list the following contests:

• U.S. Senator (full term beginning January 3, 2025,

through January 3, 2031)

• U.S. Senator (remainder of the current term ending

on January 3, 2025)

• U.S. Representative, District 11 or District 15

• State Senator, District 11

• State Assembly Member, District 17 or District 19

• Judge of the Superior Court, Seat 1 and Seat 13

• 1 State Ballot Measure

• 7 Local Ballot Measures

If you are registered with a preference for… then your March 5 ballot will also list:

The Democratic Party

• Democratic Presidential candidates

• Democratic County Central Committee candidates

The Republican Party

• Republican Presidential candidates

• Republican County Central Committee candidates

The American Independent Party* • American Independent Presidential candidates

The Green Party* • Green Presidential candidates

The Libertarian Party* • Libertarian Presidential candidates

The Peace and Freedom Party* • Peace and Freedom Presidential candidates

No Party or an Unqualified Party

• No presidential candidates, unless you request a

ballot with Presidential candidates from American

Independent, Democratic, or Libertarian parties

• No County Central Committee candidates

*March 5 ballots for voters registered with a preference for the American Independent, Green, Libertarian, or Peace and Freedom parties will not

include a county central committee or county council contest. Such contests will not appear on these ballots either because the number of seats

exceeds the number of candidates or because the party has chosen to hold meetings in lieu of using a public ballot.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP5

Your March 5 Election Ballot

(for voters registered with a qualiﬁed political party)

Your voter record indicates you registered to vote with a preference for one of the qualified political parties. Your

ballot will list the presidential primary contest and county central committee contest, if any, of the political party

you selected when you registered to vote.

To receive a dierent ballot, you can:

If you want to vote for another party's presidential candidates, you must re-register to vote with a preference for

that party.

February 20, 2024 is the last day to re-register in time to receive a different ballot reflecting your new party

preference by mail. You can re-register online at registertovote.ca.gov or using a paper registration form.

Through Election Day, March 5, you can change your party preference and receive a different ballot at any

in-person voting site.

Need to request a replacement ballot?

If you make a mistake while marking your official ballot, you can request a replacement at sfelections.org/voterportal,

by calling (415) 554-4375, or asking a poll worker or a Voting Center representative.

Steps to marking your ballot

1. Before you mark any contest, review the instructions printed on each ballot card.

2. To ensure your selections will be readable and countable, use a pencil, or a pen with black or blue ink.

3. Fill in the oval to the right of your choice for the contest or measure.

4. If you do not want to vote on a certain contest or measure, leave it blank. Your votes for the other contests and

measures will still count.

5. If you want to vote for a qualified write-in candidate*, write the candidate’s name in the space at the end of the

candidate list and fill in the oval next to the space.

*A qualified write-in candidate is a person who has submitted the required documentation to run for office, but whose name does not appear on the

ballot. A list of qualified write-in candidates will be available at sfelections.org/writein and the City Hall Voting Center starting February 23, 2024 as well

as all polling places on Election Day, March 5, 2024.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP6-NPP

Your March 5 Election Ballot

(for voters registered with no party preference or with a preference

for an unqualiﬁed party)

Your voter record indicates you registered to vote either with no party preference or with a preference for an

unqualified political party. Your ballot will not list a presidential contest, unless you take action to receive a

different ballot.

To receive a dierent ballot, you can:

1. Request a ballot with presidential candidates of the American Independent, Democratic, or Libertarian

parties. There are several ways to make this request:

• Log into sfelections.org/voterportal

• Use the form at sfelections.org/ballotrequest

• Use the form on the back cover of this Pamphlet

• Call (415) 554-4375

• Text “START” to (415) 941-5495 followed by your name, date of birth, address, and ballot request

• Access your ballot at sfelections.org/access, or

• Request your ballot at an in-person voting site

2. Register with any qualified political party preference to receive a ballot with that party’s presidential and

County Central Committee candidates, if any.

February 20, 2024 is the last day to re-register in time to receive a ballot reflecting your new party preference by

mail. You can re-register online at registertovote.ca.gov or using a paper registration form.

Through Election Day, March 5, you can change your party preference and receive a different ballot at any

in-person voting site.

Note: If you have already requested a ballot with presidential candidates or re-registered to vote with a

qualified political party preference, you do not need to do anything more. You can track your new ballot at

sfelections.org/voterportal or by calling (415) 554-4375.

Need to request a replacement ballot?

If you make a mistake while marking your official ballot, you can request a replacement at sfelections.org/voterportal,

by calling (415) 554-4375, or asking a poll worker or a Voting Center representative.

Steps to marking your ballot

1. Before you mark any contest, review the instructions printed on each ballot card.

2. To ensure your selections will be readable and countable, use a pencil, or a pen with black or blue ink.

3. Fill in the oval to the right of your choice for the contest or measure.

4. If you do not want to vote on a certain contest or measure, leave it blank. Your votes for the other contests

and measures will still count.

5. If you want to vote for a qualified write-in candidate*, write the candidate’s name in the space at the end of

the candidate list and fill in the oval next to the space.

*A qualified write-in candidate is a person who has submitted the required documentation to run for office, but whose name does not appear on the

ballot. A list of qualified write-in candidates will be available at sfelections.org/writein and the City Hall Voting Center starting February 23, 2024 as

well as all polling places on Election Day, March 5, 2024.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP7

Voter Bill of Rights

You have the following rights:

1. The right to vote if you are a registered voter.

You are eligible to vote if you are:

• a U.S. citizen living in California

• at least 18 years old

• registered where you currently live

• not currently serving a state or federal prison

term for the conviction of a felony, and

• not currently found mentally incompetent to

vote by a court

2. The right to vote if you are a registered voter even

if your name is not on the list.

You will vote using a provisional ballot. Your vote

will be counted if elections officials determine that

you are eligible to vote.

3. The right to vote if you are still in line when the

polls close.

4. The right to cast a secret ballot without anyone

bothering you or telling you how to vote.

5. The right to get a new ballot if you have made

a mistake, if you have not already cast your

ballot. You can:

• Ask an elections official at a polling place for a

new ballot; or

• Exchange your vote-by-mail ballot for a new

one at an elections office, or at your polling

place; or

• Vote using a provisional ballot, if you do not

have your original vote-by-mail ballot.

6. The right to get help casting your ballot from

anyone you choose, except from your employer

or union representative.

7. The right to drop off your completed vote-by-mail

ballot at any polling place in California.

8. The right to get election materials in a language

other than English if enough people in your

voting precinct speak that language.

9. The right to ask questions to elections officials

about election procedures and watch the election

process. If the person you ask cannot answer your

questions, they must send you to the right person

for an answer. If you are disruptive, they can stop

answering you.

10. The right to report any illegal or fraudulent

election activity to an elections official or the

Secretary of State’s office.

• On the web at www.sos.ca.gov

• By phone at (800) 345-VOTE (8683)

• By email at [email protected]

Your Voter Record

This February, we will mail a ballot to the address in your voter record. To ensure your address is current,

check it at voterstatus.sos.ca.gov. If necessary, you can update your address at registertovote.ca.gov.

It is illegal for anyone to use voter registration information for prot. But it is legal for people to use it for

certain other purposes. The California Secretary of State makes these rules. If you have questions about

this topic, call 800-345-8683.

Voters in dangerous situations may qualify for the Safe at Home program. This program is run by the

Secretary of State. Under this program, voters can use a condential address to receive elections mail.

For details, call 877-322-5227 or visit sos.ca.gov/registries/safe-home.

If you believe you have been denied any of these

rights, call the Secretary of State’s confidential

toll-free Voter Hotline at (800) 345-VOTE (8683).

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP8

Ways to Vote

There are two ways to vote by mail:

Here are important things to keep in mind:

• If you return your ballot by mail on Election Day, you

must make sure the last pickup time on the mailbox

is before the close of polls at 8 p.m.

• If you return your ballot to a polling place, the City

Hall Voting Center, or a ballot drop off box on Election

Day, you must do so by the close of polls at 8 p.m.

• You can find a list of the city’s polling places at

sfelections.org/myvotinglocation.

• You can find a map of local ballot drop off boxes at

sfelections.org/ballotdropoff or on page 10 of this

pamphlet.

• You can track your ballot along its journey to you

and back to the Department of Elections. Go to

sfelections.org/voterportal to see where it is and

whether we have counted it. Or sign up for tracking

notifications at wheresmyballot.sos.ca.gov.

• You can request a replacement mail ballot. If you do

not receive, lose, damage, or mismark your original

ballot, you can request a replacement. Call us at

(415) 554-4375 or go to sfelections.org/voterportal

by 7 days before Election Day to make your request.

You can also choose to vote in person. (If, after we

mail your ballot, you update your home or mailing

address or your party or language preference, we will

automatically mail you a replacement.)

We can only count your ballot if you return it by Election Day, March 5, 2024!

Use the ballot we mail you.

About a month before Election Day, the Department

of Elections will mail ballot packets to all local

voters. Each packet will include an official ballot, a

postage-paid return envelope, voting instructions

and an “I Voted”sticker. You can mark and return

your ballot by mail or in person. To return your

ballot, follow these four steps:

Go to sfelections.org/access to download

an accessible ballot.

29 days before Election Day, we will open the

Accessible Vote-By-Mail portal. Here, you can use

a screen-reader, head-pointer, sip and puff, or a

similar tool to mark your ballot. For security, you

cannot return your ballot online. You must print

it out and return it by mail or in person. To return

your ballot, follow these four steps:

(there are two ways to vote by mail)

Mail ballot Accessible ballot

Mark your ballot

Enclose your ballot

Prepare your envelope

Return your ballot

Complete and sign the voter section

of the return envelope, then seal it.

Drop your envelope into a mailbox or bring

it to a voting site or ballot drop off box.

Make selections after reading

all online instructions.

Follow prompts to print your ballot

and place it into a return envelope.

Mark your ballot

Enclose your ballot

Prepare your envelope

Return your ballot

Complete and sign the voter section

of the return envelope, then seal it.

Drop your envelope into a mailbox or bring

it to a voting site or ballot drop off box.

Make selections after reading

instructions on each ballot card.

Remove receipts, fold each card, and

place them into a return envelope.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP9

There are two ways to vote in person:

Starting February 5, any local voter can cast their

ballot at the City Hall Voting Center. The Voting Center

will be open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. every weekday between

February 5 and March 4 (except February 19 holiday).

The Voting Center will also be open 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

on the weekends of February 24–25 and March 2–3.

On Election Day, March 5, the Voting Center will be

open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

On Election Day, 501 polling places will be open

between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. It is important to vote at

your assigned polling place.

Your name will only be on the roster of voters at

your assigned polling place. If you go to another

polling place instead, your name will not be on

the roster. You can still vote a provisional ballot

there, but it may not list all the contests as the

ballot at your assigned polling place.

Find your assigned polling place on the back cover of

this pamphlet or at sfelections.org/myvotinglocation.

San Francisco’s Voting System

Here are some facts about the voting system:

Voters mark their ballots by filling in ovals next to their selections.

All voting sites have machines that scan ballots. Ballot-marking devices with

touchscreen and audio ballots are also available.

The Department of Elections tests all voting equipment before each election.

This ensures that the equipment works correctly and produces accurate results.

Anyone can observe this testing.

The voting system is not connected to the internet or any other

computer network.

Vote at the City Hall Voting Center Vote at your assigned polling place

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP10

Beginning February 5, you can drop off your ballot at any of the City’s 37 ofcial drop boxes.

Every drop box shows the City seal and the American ag, is accessible and outdoors, and is

open 24/7 until 8 p.m. on Election Day, March 5.

Ocial Ballot Drop Boxes in San Francisco

Ballot Drop Box

Supervisorial District Boundaries

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP11

Supervisorial

District

Ballot

Drop Box

Location Address

1 Cabrillo Playground 853 38th Ave

2 Richmond/Senator Milton Marks Branch Library 351 9th Ave

3 Golden Gate Valley Branch Library 1801 Green St

4 Presidio Branch Library 3150 Sacramento St

5 City College of San Francisco - Chinatown Center 808 Kearny St

6 Huntington Park

California St and Taylor St

7 North Beach Branch Library 850 Columbus Ave

8 Ortega Branch Library 3223 Ortega St

9 Parkside Branch Library 1200 Taraval St

10 City Hall

1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Pl

11 Father Alfred E. Boeddeker Park 246 Eddy St

12 Park Branch Library 1833 Page St

13 UC Law San Francisco 200 McAllister St

14 Western Addition Branch Library 1550 Scott St

15 City College of San Francisco - Downtown Center 88 4th St

16 Mission Bay Branch Library 960 4th St

17 Ship Shape Community Center 850 Avenue I

18 Forest Hill Station (Muni Metro) 380 Laguna Honda Blvd

19 Ingleside Branch Library 1298 Ocean Ave

20 Merced Branch Library 155 Winston Dr

21 Sunset Branch Library 1305 18th Ave

22 San Francisco State - Mashouf Wellness Center 755 Font Blvd

23 UCSF Medical Center - Millberry Union Plaza 500 Parnassus Ave

24 Eureka Valley Recreation Center 100 Collingwood St

25 Glen Park BART Station 2901 Diamond St

26 Harvey Milk Recreation Center 50 Scott St

27 Noe Valley/Sally Brunn Branch Library 451 Jersey St

28 Bernal Heights Branch Library 500 Cortland Ave

29 City College of San Francisco - Mission Center 1125 Valencia St

Portola Branch Library

380 Bacon St

31 Bayview/Linda Brooks-Burton Branch Library 5075 3rd St

32 Jackson Playground Rec Center Mariposa St and Arkansas St

33 Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center 1001 Potrero Ave

34 Visitacion Valley Branch Library 201 Leland Ave

35 Crocker Amazon Playground 799 Moscow St

36 Excelsior Branch Library 4400 Mission St

37 Ocean View Branch Library 345 Randolph St

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP12

Accessible Voting Resources

We provide many resources to ensure all voters can vote privately

and independently.

Accessible Voter Pamphlet

You can find PDF, HTML, XML, and MP3 formats of this pamphlet

at sfelections.org/vip. You can contact us at (415) 554-4375 to

request a large print, audio flash drive, or compact disc pamphlet.

You can also get a talking book pamphlet and a free audio player

at the Talking Books and Braille Center. It is located on the second

floor of the main library at 100 Larkin Street.

Accessible ballot

Starting February 5 through 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, March 5,

you can download an accessible ballot at sfelections.org/access.

Here, you can use a screen-reader, head-pointer, sip and puff, or a

similar tool to mark your ballot. For security, you cannot return

your ballot online. When you finish voting, you must print your

ballot out and return it by mail or in person.

Accessible voting sites

You can view accessibility facts about your voting site on the

back of this pamphlet.

You can also vote early at the accessible City Hall Voting Center.

It opens on February 5.

You can move around any voting site in a wheelchair. You can

request a page magnifier, an easy-grip pen, a signature guide

with braille instructions, or a chair at any voting site.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP13

Every voting site has a ballot-marking device with touchscreen

and audio ballots. On this device, you can select your ballot

format, font, background color, and language. You can navigate

through contests on your ballot using a braille keypad,

headphones, or other device.

Curbside voting

You can get a ballot delivered outside at any voting site.

Call (415) 554-4375 or ask someone to go inside and request

this service for you.

An elections worker will bring your ballot outside and explain

how to vote. When you finish voting, an elections worker will

come and collect your ballot. Your ballot will remain in its secrecy

folder until being cast.

Help with ballot marking

You can ask an elections worker for help marking your ballot. You

can also bring one or two people to help you mark your ballot.

Your helper cannot be your employer or a union representative.

Helpers cannot make voting decisions for you.

Ballot delivery and pickup

If you are unable to leave your house or are in the hospital during

the last week of the voting period, you can request a ballot

delivery or pickup. Contact us at (415) 554-4375 to request this

service.

Voting Accessibility Advisory Committee

Our Voting Accessibility Advisory Committee works to improve

access to voting in San Francisco. Call us at (415) 554-4375 to join

this committee.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP14

We provide ballots, voting materials, and in-person assistance in Chinese, Spanish, and Filipino, in addition to English. Upon request,

we can also provide interpreting services in many other languages.

At all voting locations, we offer facsimile (reference) ballots in Burmese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Vietnamese.

Any voter can request ofcial elections materials in any language at: sfelections.org/language or by calling (415) 554-4375.

See the list of all San Francisco polling places, along with the types of language resources available at:

sfelections.org/voteatyourpollingplace.

我們可以協助您!

如果您想收到中文版的選舉資料，請在選務處網站sfelections.org/language更新您的語言偏好或致電(415) 554-4367。

¡Le podemos ayudar!

Si desea recibir los materiales electorales en español además de en inglés, actualice su preferencia de idioma en

sfelections.org/language o llame al (415) 554-4366.

Matutulungan namin kayo!

Kung gusto ninyo ng mga materyales sa wikang Filipino, bukod sa Ingles, i-update ang inyong kagustuhan sa wika sa

sfelections.org/language o tumawag sa (415) 554-4310.

ကၽြႏ္ုပ္တိ သင့္ကုိ ကူညီႏိုင္ပါသည္။

(



) Department of Elections 



 ()  









 













 -

sfelections.org/myvotinglocation





 က်sfelections.org/language 

(415) 554-4375





 



 









- sfelections.org/voteatyourpollingplace 





 









(

























)၎င်း























お手伝いいたします

。

選挙管理事務所では、投票用紙のサンプル（参照用）の日本語版を提供しております。投票用紙のサンプルとは、日本語

に翻訳された公式投票用紙の完全な複製版です。

あなたが投票権を持つ選挙の投票用紙のサンプルを見るには、sfelections.org/myvotinglocationにアクセスしてください。

投票用紙のサンプルを郵便で受け取りたい場合、sfelections.org/language にアクセスするか、または(415) 554-4375に電

話して請求してください。

Multilingual Voter Services

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP15

一部の投票所では、投票用紙のサンプルが日本語で用意されています。サンフランシスコ市内の投票所の一覧と、言語の

リソースを見るには、sfelections.org/voteatyourpollingplace にアクセスしてください。

投票所は選挙当日の午前 7 時から午後8 時まで開いています。

有権者は、投票用紙のマークシートに記入するために最大2人の介助者を付けることができます（有権者の雇用主、有権

者の雇用主の代理人、または有権者が所属する組合の役員や代理人を除く）。また、有権者は投票所の係員に当該の支

援を求めることもできます。

󱛜󲥘󳻡󱟴󱳄󰾸󲗍󱗠󱗼

󲬘󳪄󳻡󲐸󰾈󲂘󲣨󲐴󱖬󳻡󲀍󲬴󲀐󲽐󲮈󲧁󳕄󳝴󲧁󲳘󱲔󳻡󳡴󱂅󲣌󱭴󳻡󲬴󱀍󳢁󱗠󱗼󲀍󲬴󲀐󳻡󳕄󳝴󲧁󲳘󱖬󳻡󲬭󲗵󳻡󳕄󳝴󲧁󲳘󲥘󳻡󲬭󳥭󳪠󳻡󱛱󲪔󳡴󳻡󱏌󲧁󲩜

󳡴󱂅󲣌󱭴󳻡󱾠󲤅󳡴󳻡󰾛󲪝󱗠󱗼

󲀐󲪐󲣨󰾤󳻡󳢌󱘑󱜰󱖬󳻡󳕄󳝴󲧁󲳘󱲔󳻡󲀍󲬴󲀐󲩔󱭴󳻡󲀌󱬼󱶌sfelections.org/myvotinglocation 󲩜󳻡󱽁󱹐󳡰󲗴󱅈󳻡󱼬󱪥󱗠󱗼

󲀍󲬴󲀐󳻡󳕄󳝴󲧁󲳘󱲔󳻡󲧈󳛐󲩔󱭴󳻡󱼳󲩔󱬼󱶌sfelections.org/language󱲔󳻡󱽁󱹐󳡰󰾈󱎰󳼎󳼋󳼏󳼏󳼏󳼎󳼎󳼍󳼑󳼏󱭴󳻡󲬜󳥬󳢌󳻡󲦬󲿅󳡰󲗴󱅈󳻡󱼬󱪥󱗠󱗼

󲪔󲂘󳻡󳕄󳝴󲒤󲣨󲐴󱖬󳻡󳡴󱂅󲣌󱭴󳻡󱜴󳻡󲀍󲬴󲀐󳻡󳕄󳝴󲧁󲳘󱲔󳻡󱽈󲂘󳢁󱗠󱗼󲏤󳠜󱪘󲗴󲖼󳉬󳻡󳕄󳝴󲒤󳻡󲬜󲿌󳻡󱷁󱭵󱀔󳻡󱗼󱂅󲣌󳻡󱛜󲧘󲪨󱯤󱲔󳻡󲏌󳛌󲀌󱬼󱶌

sfelections.org/voteatyourpollingplace 󱲔󳻡󱽁󱹐󳡰󲗴󱅈󳻡󱼬󱪥󱗠󱗼

󳕄󳝴󲒤󳻡󲧌󲤙󲗴󰼜󲐸󰾈󳻡󱘑󲪔󳻡󲤼󲬜󳼑󲗴󲤼󳧜󳼒󲗴

󲨸󱂤󲪨󱖬󳻡󳕄󳝴󲧁󲳘󳻡󳝴󱅈󳻡󲗴󲣨󳻡󱛜󲧘󲩜󳻡󲰜󳻡󲏄󱪤󲩜󳻡󳁴󱘘󳼌󱶝󱘀󲨸󱂤󲪨󳻡󲀐󲪐󲩰󳻡󰿸󲧁󲰔󰿸󲧁󲰔󲩰󳻡󱘘󱳄󲪐󱤨󱖬󳻡󲨸󱂤󲪨󰼘󳻡󰼘󲪝󳡴

󱒐󱛱󲮈󳢁󲩰󳻡󲪜󲧨󲪌󱎰󳻡󱘘󱳄󲪐󲩘󳻡󲬴󲦐󲦬󲿅󳡸󳻡󲔰󳻡󲪠󲗍󱗠󱗼󱤨󳡴󳻡󳕄󳝴󲦬󲧨󲣨󰾤󳻡󱛜󲧘󲩜󳻡󲿅󳡰󲑬󱛜󳻡󱝁󱗠󱗼

เราช

่

วยค

ุ

ณได้ !

Department of Elections















sfelections.org/myvotinglocation

sfelections.org/language(415) 554-4375



















sfelections.org/voteatyourpollingplace













































Chúng tôi có thể trợ giúp quý vị!

Cơ quan Bầu cử có thể cung cấp các lá phiếu mẫu (lá phiếu tham chiếu) bằng tiếng Việt. Lá phiếu mẫu là những bản sao y của lá phiếu chính

thức mà được dịch qua tiếng Việt.

Để xem một lá phiếu mẫu có các mục bầu cử mà quý vị có quyền bỏ phiếu, vui lòng truy cập trang mạng: sfelections.org/myvotinglocation.

Để yêu cầu nhận được lá phiếu mẫu qua thư, vui lòng truy cập trang mạng sfelections.org/language hoặc gọi số (415) 554-4375.

Tại một số địa điểm bỏ phiếu, Cơ quan có sẵn các mẫu lá phiếu bằng tiếng Việt. Để xem danh sách liệt kê tất cả các địa điểm bỏ phiếu ở

San Francisco cùng với các dịch vụ hỗ trợ ngôn ngữ tại từng địa điểm, xin truy cập: sfelections.org/voteatyourpollingplace

Các phòng phiếu mở cửa từ 7 giờ sáng đến 8 giờ tối vào Ngày bầu cử.

Mỗi cử tri đều có quyền yêu cầu tối đa hai người đi cùng để trợ giúp trong việc điền vào lá phiếu (người đi cùng không thể là chủ thuê lao

động, đại diện của chủ thuê lao động hoặc viên chức hay đại diện của công đoàn mà cử tri là thành viên). Cử tri cũng có thể yêu cầu nhân

viên phòng phiếu trợ giúp điền lá phiếu.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP16

Candidate Information

Candidate Party Preferences

The registered political party preference, or lack thereof, of any candidate running for a voter-nominated office will

be printed beside each candidate’s name on the ballot. If a candidate is running for a non-partisan office, no party

will appear next to the candidate’s name.

Candidate Statements of Qualiﬁcations

Some candidates on the ballot have timely submitted statements of qualifications for publication in this pamphlet.

Such statements have been printed at the candidates’ expense.

Neither the Director of Elections, nor any other City agency, official, or employee, verifies the accuracy of the

information contained in any of the candidate qualification statements appearing in this pamphlet.

Candidate information can be found as follows:

California Voter Information Guide

(available at voterguide.sos.ca.gov)

Candidates running for the following offices:

United States Senator

(regular 6-year term ending January 3, 2031)

United States Senator

(remainder of the current term ending

January 3, 2025)

San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet

Candidates running for the following offices:

United States Representative

District 11 and District 15

State Senator

District 11

State Assembly

District 17 and District 19

Judge of the Superior Court

Seat 1 and Seat 13

Voluntary Spending Limits

California Government Code (CAGC) §85600 requires the Department of Elections to publish the names of

candidates who have voluntarily agreed to abide by the spending limits set forth in CAGC §85400. In this election,

these candidates include:

State Senator, District 11

Yvette Corkrean

Scott Wiener

Jing Chao Xiong

State Assembly, District 17

Otto Duke

Matt Haney

Manuel Noris-Barrera

State Assembly, District 19

Nadia Flamenco

David E. Lee

Arjun Gustav Sodhani

Catherine Stefani

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP17

By law, we must send the Voter Information Pamphlet to all

local voters, except those who chose to access it online. This

choice allows us to save both trees and city funds! To opt out

from receiving your Voter Pamphlets, point your camera to the

QR code on the right, log in to sfelections.org/voterportal or

call (415) 554-4375. You can opt out of the state Voter Guide

at voterstatus.sos.ca.gov. You can opt back in at any time.

Go paperless! Go green!

Access your Voter Pamphlet on your screen.

scan

Party Endorsements of Candidates

State law allows political parties to endorse candidates for statewide offices. In this election, timely submitted

endorsements are as follows:

United States Senator

American Independent Party: James Bradley

Libertarian Party: Gail Lightfoot

United States Representative, District 11

Democratic Party: Nancy Pelosi

Republican Party: Bruce Lou

American Independent Party: Bruce Lou

United States Representative, District 15

Democratic Party: Kevin Mullin

Republican Party: Anna Cheng Kramer

American Independent Party: Anna Cheng Kramer

State Senator, District 11

Democratic Party: Scott Wiener

Republican Party: Yvette Corkrean

American Independent Party: Yvette Corkrean

State Assembly, District 17

Democratic Party: Matt Haney

Republican Party: Manuel Noris-Barrera

American Independent Party: Manuel Noris-Barrera

State Assembly, District 19

Democratic Party: Catherine Stefani

American Independent Party: Nadia Flamenco

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP18

My occupation is Software Engineer.

My qualifications are: San Francisco, it’s time for a

change! The world around is on fire, and the people

who led us into this mess aren’t going to be the people

who lead us out of it.

If you love San Francisco like I do, then you want to

see this beautiful city THRIVE! It pains me to see our

sidewalks covered in tents, while having to avoid feces

and needles at our feet. I want people to feel safe walk-

ing around at night, attending new events like Night

Market, to help this city get out of its post-pandemic

slump. I want to see clean sidewalks so people can

enjoy themselves eating at tables outdoors, and

not worry about their cars being broken into while

they’re away.

As your representative, my goal will be to partner the

federal government with city and state governments

to clean up our streets. San Francisco’s homeless crisis

isn’t just a city crisis, it’s a national crisis spreading

across every city and state in our nation, and it’s time

we treated it with the attention it deserves. I want to

build a program that works with people, respectfully

and with dignity, to help people get back on their feet,

back to work where they can find jobs, and be self-

dependent in the future.

As Abraham Lincoln said, “The legitimate object of

government, is to do for a community of people,

whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at

all, or can not, so well do, for themselves—in their

separate, and individual capacities.” It’s time we make

our government work for us.

Thank you, and Go Giants!

Jason Boyce

My occupation is Business Owner.

My qualifications are: My name is Bruce Lou and I am

the officially endorsed San Francisco Republican Party

and California Republican Party candidate running to

represent San Francisco in Congress. I am a Bay Area

native, a UC Berkeley graduate, a business owner, and

a Jeopardy! champion.

I am young and represent the generation who will one

day inherit this country. As a political newcomer, I am

a fresh voice as opposed to Washington insiders who

only have their own interests in mind.

San Francisco represents the promise of opportu-

nity and of a new life that has attracted people for

hundreds of years, from the Forty-Niners to immi-

grants like my parents who came for a more free and

prosperous future. I still believe in the promise of

San Francisco, but it can be hard to fulfill when issues

like crime, homelessness, and surging inflation make

life seem bleak for the people of this city.

I appreciate the unique place that San Francisco has in

the world and understand the grave peril that America

is in right now. Our cherished freedoms are under

threat and we face the looming threat of global war.

I will find common-sense solutions that put people

above politics.

I will:

- direct federal funds to ensure public safety

- prevent intrusions upon our fundamental

constitutional rights

- ensure fairness for all in admissions and

under the law

- promote peace without getting entangled in

foreign conflicts

Thank you, and remember to vote Bruce Lou for a

brighter future.

For more information: www.bruceforcongress.org

Bruce Lou

Jason Boyce Bruce Lou

United States Representative, District 11

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP19

My occupation is Attorney / Peace Advocate.

My qualifications are: Juris Doctor Degree from UCLA

School of Law, excelling in Constitutional Law, and

decades of fierce legal battles, I’m a grandmother dedi-

cated to Peace and saving humanity and sustaining

Life on Planet Earth for future generations.

We must STOP USA Weapons of Death and Endless

Wars!

Marjorie Mikels will:

1. Prioritize universal human security and environ-

mental preservation over corporate capital growth

supported by military might, benefiting the few at

the expense of the vast majority of humankind.

2. Support treaties for Non-proliferation and

Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

3. Slash the military budget, devoting money saved for

the needs of people.

We got broken promises of Medicare for all, $15 mini-

mum wage, reproductive rights, student debt relief,

and ending scourge of homelessness. Instead, over

half the budget goes to the war machine.

Innocent civilians, women and children, are slaugh-

tered in the name of “Self-Defense”, while Congress

votes billions more weapons for GENOCIDE. Those

who oppose massacres done in our name, with our

tax dollars, are stigmatized. No diplomatic resolution

is sought in Ukraine. Ever increasing pivot to War with

China. War is not green! US military is Earth’s biggest

polluter and user of fossil fuels. The world moves

closer to nuclear annihilation.

To keep the “peace” (when the gulf between the rich

and the rest of us is greater than ever in history) civil

society is increasingly surveilled, and subjected to

massive police escalation, as the war is brought home.

VOTE MARJORIE MIKELS FOR PEACE, JUSTICE AND

SECURITY FOR ALL!

Marjorie Mikels

My occupation is Retired Educator.

My qualifications are: 12 years as Paraprofessional

in SFUSD

I’m running for Congress to improve the economic

conditions of every American, stop climate change and

reduce wars. We need Medicare for All, secure retire-

ment, subsidized childcare, end to debt slavery and

make joining unions easy.

Medicare for All may raise taxes some, but no one will

have premiums or copays. If you need medical care,

you get it free. Overall costs will go down because we

eliminate insurance middlemen. No one will be denied

services or left with massive medical debt.

A secure retirement means expanding Social Security

to give everyone a livable payment. Social Security will

not run out of money if we scrap the cap so rich people

pay their fair share.

Subsidized childcare helps parents work & insures

have enough to eat as their brain & body grows.

End of debt slavery means forgiving student debts

because we want young people to have a good start in

life. Forgiving medical debt will help many to save the

homes they have.

Making it easy to join unions means less exploitation

of workers, better benefits and livible wages.

Larry Nichelson

Marjorie Mikels Larry Nichelson

United States Representative, District 11

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP20

My occupation is Member of Congress.

My qualifications are: Dear Friends,

It is my honor to be your voice in Congress and repre-

sent our San Francisco values that uplift the dignity

and worth of every person. As your Representative,

I promised to help rebuild from the COVID recession

from the bottom up and the middle-class out – with

good paying union jobs, and dignity for workers —

and my office’s efforts delivered thousands of jobs and

billions in resources to our community.

We must protect our progress and do more to improve

people’s lives: extend the Biden Child Tax Credit that

cut child poverty nearly by half, invest in public educa-

tion, childcare, universal pre-K, paid leave, home

health care, and more union jobs. We must codify Roe

v Wade, pass the Equality Act and restore the Assault

Weapons Ban.

Unfortunately, extremists are working to attack our

reproductive freedoms, scapegoat immigrants and

LGTBQ Americans, repeal lower drug prices, roll

back climate action, slash Social Security, Medicare

and Medicaid, cut veterans earned benefits, repeal

the Affordable Care Act, and give obscene tax cuts

to the rich.

American Democracy itself is on the line in 2024.

As we protect our progress, we must restore voting

rights and defend our Constitution. We need strong

Democracy at home and support for diplomacy and

allies abroad to constantly show the world that our flag

is still there, with liberty and justice for all.

These are the fights we face — and why I am running

for re-election to Congress. I respectfully seek your

vote. Thank you. NANCY

Nancy Pelosi

My occupation is Actress & Media Personality.

My qualifications are: Aka BiancaForSanFrancisco.org.

You’ve all seen the iconic silhouette of this move-

ment around town. This ICON represents the faceless

masses yearning to be seen, their voices needing to

be heard. This campaign is bigger than one person; it’s

about all of us.

My family’s roots go back nearly 200 years in Northern

California to the Gold Rush. Before that the American

Revolution as a direct descendant of Augustine and

Martha Ball Washington

Prior to be being the girl you loved to hate on your

favorite TV programs, I studied computer science

and economics at Stanford and systems engineer-

ing at MIT.

Platform:

• Green New Deal (modified for the Fusion age)

• Medicare For All

• Universal Basic Income

Distinctions:

• The ONLY Democrat to sign the pledge for

term limits.

• The ONLY candidate to modify our Green New Deal

for the integration of fusion energy.

• linktr.ee/Bianca4SF for proper CV (LinkedIN)

Covenant with the people of San Francisco:

1. I will accomplish my platform or bring their

detractors to light!

2. I will not allow the agenda to be side-tracked by

political distractions or “comfort politics”. We must

eat our political vegetables!

Recently the world watched in horror and dismay as an

aging Dianne Feinstein mentally and physically dete-

riorated before our eyes. Sometimes we need to do for

others what they cannot do for themselves - retire.

Now more than ever we need to show the world that

transgender people are not focal points of hate, but

beacons of hope and light.

Xxoxox

Bianca Von Krieg

Nancy Pelosi Bianca Von Krieg

United States Representative, District 11

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP21

My occupation is Data Engineer.

My qualifications are: It is my honor to represent

San Francisco.

I believe that dreams can be chased, fought for, and

achieved. There is nothing that is impossible. It doesn’t

matter if you arrive in the city with a penny; you can

earn the life you want. I believe in this pursuit of

happiness, the goodness within all people, and my

conviction of faith.

I first ran for office a decade ago, then left the city

shortly afterwards. I began my career by founding a

startup in local news, then led two others in agriculture

analytics and commercial mining. When the pandemic

struck, I was in Montana on an army grant. I dropped

out of the election there and came home that summer,

because I don’t represent the average Montanan.

As a pro-nature and conservative candidate, my first

priority is to provide parents the autonomy to best

educate their children by allowing vouchers at private

schools. Second, police officers require more flexibility

in apprehending drug suppliers which will reduce

fentanyl accessibility. Third, accredited education can

be substituted for certain work requirements. The

purpose of benefits is to help people onto their feet so

they won’t return to welfare.

Government should provide everyone with an equality

of opportunities, but also the freedom of outcomes.

Everyone should excel, if they are willing to earn it.

I humbly ask for your vote to represent San Francisco.

Thank you.

Jason Chuyuan Zeng

United States Representative, District 11

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP22

My occupation is Housing Policy Executive /

Businesswoman.

My qualifications are: I am an immigrant from Taiwan

and became a US citizen because I love the freedom

and liberties of America. The Bay Area Peninsula has

been my home since 1976, living in San Francisco, East

Palo Alto, North Fair Oaks and San Carlos.

My involvement in public service has been local,

acting as the Chairwoman of North Fair Oaks and a

member on the Economic Development Advisory

Commission in San Carlos. After getting an MBA from

the University of Santa Clara, I built my career invest-

ing and managing housing units throughout the West

Coast and nationwide.

As Chief Operating Officer of Mid-Peninsula Housing

Coalition, I gained expertise on how nonprofit, safe

affordable housing was financed, built, and occu-

pied. Given my background, I am uniquely qualified

to address housing issues, public safety, and the

economy. We need real local solutions...not top-down

mandates from the State.

Partisan politics in Washington has brought an extreme

divisiveness that was never intended in our free

society. I will work across the aisle and find bipartisan

solutions for the border crisis and immigration reform.

Federal government expenditures should produce

measurable results, not enrich special interest groups.

A thriving economy is based on a free market system,

not excessive government spending. Congress should

reflect the will of the people and not lobbyists. I will

listen to all my constituents irrespective of political

affiliation with the goal of achieving Safety, Security

and Prosperity for everyone. It will be an honor to

serve as your US Congressional Representative.

Vote Anna Cheng Kramer

www.ackramerforcongress.org

Anna Cheng Kramer

My occupation is U.S. Representative.

My qualifications are: I was honored to be first elected

to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2022 after

representing San Mateo County in the State Assembly

for 10 years and previously as a Mayor/Councilmember

and small business owner in South San Francisco.

During my first year in Congress, my district office staff

has worked to return nearly $2 Million Social Security

and other tax dollars to constituents, resolved nearly

650 passport cases, and responded to over 43,000

letters, emails, and calls from District 15 constituents. I

regularly hold “Coffee with Kevin” and “Conversations

with Kevin” events, so I may hear directly from my

constituents.

I’ve introduced the Weatherization Resilience and

Adaptation Program (WRAP) Act to assist low-income

homeowners and affordable housing providers in

making their properties more resilient to climate

change and authored the Poverty Line Act to modern-

ize the federal poverty formula to include housing,

child care, and health care costs so that we may build

an economy that works for all. I’ve also supported

legislation tackling gun violence and protecting repro-

ductive freedoms and advocated for over $27 million in

federal funding for community projects.

I’m proud to be a leader on the Task Force on

Strengthening Democracy and have pushed for the

passage of H.R.11: the Freedom to Vote Act. I pledge

to work in a bipartisan way to rebuild public trust in

Congress and ensure we have a democracy that deliv-

ers on our biggest challenges.

I respectfully ask for your vote, so I can continue to

fight for the protection of our democracy and our

planet so this and future generations may thrive.

KevinMullinforCongress.com

Kevin Mullin

Anna Cheng Kramer Kevin Mullin

United States Representative, District 15

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP23

Yvette Corkrean Jing Chao Xiong

State Senator, District 11

My occupation is Registered Nurse.

My qualifications are: Yvette Corkrean, is a single mother

of two teenagers and a registered nurse who has

served her local community for 25 years. As a long-

term resident of San Francisco, she has watched in

dismay as our City has deteriorate over the years.

Yvette’s deep love and concern for her family and

encouragement from her fellow San Francisco

neighbors has inspired Yvette Corkrean to be our next

California State Senator.

“Keeping Us Safe” is the primary goal for Yvette. As

your state senator, Yvette will work to increase pros-

ecution and penalties for violent criminals. We need to

fully fund and support local law enforcement efforts

and cease being a haven for crime. Public Safety must

come first for a civilized society. This policy includes

better support for our first responder’s, crime victims

and those suffering with severe mental illness.

Yvette Corkrean, believes that a solid education is

the best remedy for the success of our children. She

was active with the successful recall of the three

San Francisco School Board Members in 2022. Yvette

is recognized by the Moms for America organization

for her staunch support of excellence in education and

parental rights.

Reviving our state’s economy is crucial for retaining

jobs and maintaining a high quality of life. Yvette

will author legislation to reduce unfair regulations

and excessive taxation. Gas, groceries, and living

in a home should not be out of reach for average

Californians.

Former Bay Area and Independent State Senator

Quentin Kopp has endorsed Yvette Corkrean.

Please vote Yvette!

For more information; yvetteforsenate.org

Yvette Corkrean

My occupation is Delivery Driver.

My qualifications are: My work is a delivery driver and

am also the founder of Social Management Science.

Social Management has designed 24 courses that can

establish a high-quality government system. Let every-

one live an ideal life!

I am committed to serving one term as Senator and

helping to bring order to the San Francisco big family!

My main purpose:

A) is to promote California land laws, which will

ensure equal development for everyone in

California.

B) Promote California’s county system reform, which

will allow San Francisco to develop equally.

C) is to offer professional courses in social manage-

ment, which can enable human beings to

develop equally!

— I has published a book, “AUTOMATED ERA,” which

can replace Marx’s “Das Kapital” and change the

Chinese system, return U.S.-China relations to normal.

I have both a Democratic mind and a Republican

dream. I enjoy the Liberian lifestyle and have the

wisdom of the Forward Party. Therefore, I am running

as nonpartisan. If you choose me, I can make

San Francisco the most livable area in the world. If you

don’t choose me, I will turn my attention to Congress

and make the American continent a big family!

Jing Chao Xiong

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP24

My occupation is State Assemblymember.

My qualifications are: In my nearly two years as your

Assemblymember, I’ve kept my promise to tackle

San Francisco’s biggest challenges.

Some of my legislative highlights:

• Led the fight against fentanyl and expanded access

to treatment and recovery with mobile pharmacies.

• Eliminated bureaucratic red tape to get desperately

needed housing built now.

• Passed first in the nation legislation to protect

patients from medication errors and increase staffing

at chain pharmacies.

• Capped security deposits at one month of rent and

lowered HOA fees to make housing more affordable

and accessible.

• Increased paid sick days and raised the minimum

wage for health care workers.

• Delivered more funding for schools, public transit,

housing and health care.

Leadership:

• Serve as Majority Whip and previously as Assistant

Majority Leader for Policy and Research.

• Chair of the Select Committee on Fentanyl, Opioid

Addiction, and Overdose Prevention, finding

innovative solutions to get fentanyl off our streets

and expand access to treatment.

• Co-founded and Chair the first-ever California

Legislative Renters’ Caucus to advocate for

pro-renter policies.

I’m proud to have a 100% score from Planned

Parenthood Affiliates of California for consistently

supporting pro-choice policies, and I received an ‘A’

rating from California Environmental Voters for always

voting in favor of environmental justice and protec-

tions. I’m continuing my commitment to improving

public safety, reducing street homelessness, ensuring

our schools and transit systems are properly funded,

and combating climate change.

Endorsed by:

• California Professional Firefighters

• California Nurses Association

• California Teachers Association

• California Environmental Voters

• Equality California

• SEIU California

• Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund

Learn more at MattHaney.com

Matt Haney

State Assembly, District 17

My occupation is Business Owner / Realtor / Father.

My qualifications are: My Name is Manuel Noris-

Barrera, and I am honored to announce my candidacy

for the Assembly District 17seat. Our district is facing

significant challenges, and I am committed to tackling

the issues that matter most to us: mental health, drug

abuse, crime, homelessness, and unemployment.

I firmly believe that everything is intertwined, and

solving one issue will create a domino effect to fix

them. As your representative, I will work tirelessly to

implement comprehensive strategies that address

the root causes of these challenges, fostering a

safer, healthier, and more prosperous future for

San Francisco.

I am eager to leverage my diverse qualifications as

a business owner, father, and realtor. Committed to

utilizing every aspect of my experience and skills.

With a business background, I’ll promote policies

attracting new businesses, investing in job training,

and stimulating economic growth it’s vital for our

prosperity.

As a father, I understand the importance of a safe and

thriving community for our families.

As a realtor, I’ll advocate for mental health funding,

humanize homelessness, and streamline SF planning

and zoning to make the process more efficient. By

cutting red tape, I aim for swift solutions to our press-

ing housing needs

Not a career politician but a dedicated community

member, I bring fresh perspectives and effective

solutions.

If elected, I’ll actively work to repeal Prop 47 and Prop

19, the “Death-Tax”

I’m not just asking for your vote; I’m seeking your

partnership in building a safer, healthier, and more

prosperous San Francisco.

Sincerely,

Manuel Noris-Barrera

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP25

My occupation is Civil Rights Educator.

My qualifications are: San Francisco needs change now.

I was born and raised in San Francisco and our quality of

life has undeniably worsened. Politicians are too afraid to

make the hard decisions necessary to fix our city.

Not me.

As an outsider, I will fight for you. Your voice will be

heard. I will work to address the most pressing issues

facing our community:

• improve public safety,

• eliminate street homelessness,

• expand clean and reliable public transportation,

• create more affordable housing,

• secure treatment for those with mental health or

addiction issues,

• reduce greenhouse emissions, and

• fight for affordable public education for all.

As an educator, I have taught at SF State University

and Laney College. As a civil rights nonprofit leader for

20 years, I empowered the community through voter

education and outreach.

With your support, I will fight for a fair and equitable

society for all Californians and fight for change. I am

proud to have the endorsement of:

California Faculty Association

California School Employees Association

Phil Ting, Assemblymember

Anthony Rendon, Assemblymember and

Former Speaker

Mark Leno, Former State Senator

Quentin Kopp, Former State Senator

Connie Chan, Supervisor

Lena Tam, Alameda County Board of Supervisors

Norman Yee, Former President, Board of Supervisors

Matt Gonzalez, Former President, Board of Supervisors

Jane Kim, Former Supervisor

Sandra Lee Fewer, Former Supervisor

Mabel Teng, Former Supervisor

Vick Chung, CCSF Trustee

Anita Martinez, CCSF Trustee

Susan Soloman, CCSF Trustee

Judge Lillian Sing (ret.)

Judge Julie Tang (ret.)

Henry Der, Civil Rights Leader

Join us at www.davidleeforassembly.com

David E. Lee

My occupation is Supervisor, City and County of

San Francisco.

My qualifications are: I’m running for Assembly to fight

for a safer California for all of us.

This isn’t an empty promise — I have the record

to back it up. As a former prosecutor, national gun

violence prevention advocate, and mom, I have

been unwavering in my commitment to fighting for

safer neighborhoods, cleaner streets, and afford-

able housing to address our homelessness crisis. As

Supervisor, I increased police staffing, cracked down

on car break-ins, and expanded access to addiction

services. I founded the San Francisco Chapter of Moms

Demand Action and passed comprehensive gun safety

laws, including California’s first ghost gun ban. I got

approval for 1,000 mixed-use homes for low-income

families and seniors. I passed comprehensive anti-

corruption legislation and supported community-led

recalls to hold the school board and district attorney

accountable.

Now, I’m ready to take the fight to the State Assembly.

There, I will press for the resources we need to

combat the pervasive open-air drug dealing on our

streets by enforcing harsher punishments for fentanyl

dealers. I will work to streamline permitting to create

more homes for low and middle-income families,

and fight for better schools that attract and retain

talented educators and offer programs our kids need

to succeed. And I will never back down from protecting

our reproductive rights.

As your Assemblymember, I will always fight for our

values. I’m proud to have support from the California

Democratic Party, California Building and Construction

Trades Council, SEIU California, California Professional

Firefighters, Congressman Kevin Mullin, Treasurer

Fiona Ma, State Senator Scott Wiener and community

leaders in Daly City, South San Francisco, Colma, and

San Francisco.

Learn more at VoteCatherineStefani.com

Catherine Stefani

David E. Lee Catherine Stefani

State Assembly, District 19

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP26

My occupation is San Francisco Superior Court Judge.

My qualifications are: I seek re-election for San Francisco

Superior Court Judge. For 13 years, I’ve presided over

civil and criminal trials, family law, juvenile depen-

dency and delinquency, traffic, appeals, and treatment

courts. I will protect public safety and respect every-

one’s dignity.

My Asian immigrant mother and 20-year US Air Force

Veteran father raised me in a small town. I attended

public schools, earned money picking berries, cleaning

construction sites, and selling hardware and children’s

shoes. As a proud father of three children, I’ve learned

to lift people up, while holding them accountable.

I’ve been assaulted, robbed, and burglarized. As the

Judge in Veterans Justice Court, CARE Court, and Drug

Court, I’ve witnessed the effects of trauma, addiction,

poverty, racism, and mental illness. These courts

provide housing, employment, and mental health/

substance use treatment which changes lives to make

San Francisco safer.

Together, let’s work for a vibrant, safe, and healthy

San Francisco.

Endorsements (partial list/ID*):

45 San Francisco Superior Court Judges

Scott Wiener, State Senator

Matt Haney, State Assemblymember

Phil Ting, State Assemblymember

Fiona Ma, State Treasurer

Paul Miyamoto, San Francisco Sheriff

Judge Lillian Sing (retired)

Judge Julie Tang (retired)

San Francisco Supervisors Aaron Peskin, Myrna

Melgar, Hillary Ronen, Connie Chan, Shamann Walton,

Dean Preston

Dennis Herrera, Former San Francisco City Attorney

Art Agnos, Former Mayor

Mark Leno, Former State Senator

Dale Minami, Co-founder Asian Law Caucus

Eva Paterson, Co-founder Equal Justice Society*

Lateefah Simon, BART Board Member*

Suzy Loftus, Former District Attorney*

Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

California Asian Pacific American Judges

Association PAC

Please vote for Judge Begert.

www.judgebegert.com

Michael Isaku Begert

My occupation is Attorney.

My qualifications are: Chip Zecher for Superior Court

Judge

As a practicing lawyer since 1990, I know what it

means to be inside a courtroom, deliver justice and

make hard decisions. As Judge, I’ll bring accountability

to our Criminal Justice system, restore trust in our

courts, and promote public safety.

I started as a research attorney at the SF Superior

Court before working as a civil litigator across the Bay

Area. Since 2008, I have worked as a corporate attor-

ney for technology companies.

In 2019, I was appointed by Governor Newsom to the

Board of Directors of the University of California Law

SF in the Tenderloin. Our community is subjected daily

to open-air drug dealing and violent crime. I know the

devastation it brings including deaths from fentanyl

overdoses. These challenges caused me to run for

Superior Court Judge.

My experience as an attorney, university board

member, constitutional law professor, and civic leader

prepared me to serve as Judge, provide equal protec-

tion under the law, and safeguard public safety.

www.ChipforSFjudge.com

Endorsers:

Mary Jung, Former SF Democratic Party Chair

Retired Judge Quentin Kopp

Frank Noto, President of Stop Crime SF

Chip Zecher

Michael Isaku Begert Chip Zecher

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat 1

Candidate Statements

Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP27

My occupation is Assistant District Attorney.

My qualifications are: For 23 years, I served as a

Prosecutor in the District Attorney’s Office prosecut-

ing cases in Domestic Violence, Gang Violence, Elder

Abuse, Narcotics and General Felony crimes.

I was born in Korea and came to America when I

was one year old. I grew up in San Francisco with

my family, who worked hard every day to build a

new life. I attended West Portal Lutheran and Lowell

High School and now have my own children in local

San Francisco schools.

San Francisco faces a number of challenges and the

judicial system plays an important role in public safety

by ensuring all laws are followed, and that there

is appropriate accountability for all who touch the

system. Judges must balance public safety, account-

ability and compassion. Throughout my career, I

have reviewed thousands of cases and made tough

decisions. Every decision was made by weighing the

evidence and with careful consideration of everyone

involved. I will bring this same approach to our

Superior Court as a Judge.

I humbly ask for your vote.

Jean Myungjin Roland

www.JeanforJudge.com

Endorsers:

Mary Jung, Former San Francisco Democratic

Party Chair

Retired Judge Quentin Kopp

Frank Noto, President of Stop Crime SF

Jean Myungjin Roland

My occupation is Superior Court Judge.

My qualifications are: Well-run courts are at the founda-

tion of a safer San Francisco — which is why I run

my courtroom “by the book” focusing on the law,

never politics.

I don’t coddle defendants. I don’t coddle defense attor-

neys. I don’t coddle prosecutors. I require everyone in

my court follows the law.

I have served the community as the Chair of the

California Pacific Medical Center, working to expand

healthcare to previously underserved communities.

As a board member of Grace Cathedral I brought a

values-based pre-school education to students from

all income levels. As a litigator I handled the most

complex legal cases before being appointed Judge by

Governor Gavin Newsom.

I have experienced crime and personally understand

safety concerns. As a Black man, I have experienced

the sting of being treated unfairly. I believe the answer

to lowering crime, and lifting up every community, is

absolute fairness before the law.

I am honored to earn the support of those who believe

the law comes before politics, like former Justice

Anthony Kline, Judge Vaughn Walker, sixteen former

presidents of the Bar Association, over 30 judges and

justices, Amos Brown pastor of Third Baptist Church

and Sheriff Paul Miyamoto.

Please support putting the law before politics at

www.JudgeThompson.com

Patrick S. Thompson

Jean Myungjin Roland Patrick S. Thompson

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat 13

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP28

Frequently Asked Questions about Registration

and Voting in San Francisco

Answered by the Ballot Simplification Committee

Registration FAQs

Who is eligible to register and to vote in California?

To vote in California elections, you must be: 1) a

United States citizen; 2) a resident of California; 3) at

least 18 years old on Election Day; 4) not currently

found mentally incompetent to vote by a court; and 5)

not currently serving a state or federal prison term for

conviction of a felony.

Please note that the passage of Proposition 17 in the

November 2020 election amended the state Constitu-

tion to allow otherwise eligible residents who are on

parole to register to vote.

Noncitizen residents of San Francisco may register

and vote in the Board of Education elections if

they are parents, legal guardians or caregivers of

children living in San Francisco and at least one

child is under 19 years old on Election Day. The next

scheduled Board of Education election will be held on

November 5, 2024.

What is the deadline to register to vote or to update

my registration information?

The deadline to register online or by mail for the

March 5 election is February 20, 2024. After that date,

you will need to register and vote with a provisional

ballot in person at the City Hall Voting Center or a

polling place.

Can I register to vote in California before I turn 18?

If you are a 16- or 17-year-old who meets the other

state voter registration requirements, you can pre-

active on your 18th birthday.

Can I register to vote in California if I just became a

new citizen?

If you become a U.S. citizen after the regular registration

deadline of February 20, you can register and vote in

person at the City Hall Voting Center or a polling place.

Can I still vote in San Francisco if I have moved

locally?

If you move within San Francisco, you can reregister

to vote at registertovote.ca.gov or update your address

at sfelections.org/voterportal or at an in-person

voting site.

Can I still vote in San Francisco if I have moved

within California?

If you move to a new California address outside

San Francisco, you can reregister to vote at

registertovote.ca.gov or contact your new county

elections official.

Can I still vote in San Francisco if I have moved to

another state?

If you move out of state, you can register with your

local elections official. You may also want to contact

the Department of Elections to cancel your registration

in San Francisco.

Can I still vote in San Francisco if I am currently

living abroad?

If you are temporarily living abroad, you may be able

to reregister and request a ballot by mail, fax, or email

by visiting registertovote.ca.gov or fvap.gov.

If you have questions about whether you can vote,

please contact the Department of Elections at (415)

554-4375 or email at SFVote@sfgov.org.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP29

Vote-by-Mail Ballot Delivery FAQs

Will I receive my ballot in the mail?

Per state law, all voters will now receive ballots in the

mail for all future elections. Any voter may choose to

cast a ballot arriving in the mail or vote in person in

the March 5, 2024 election.

What if my ballot does not arrive in the mail?

You can track where your ballot is in the mailing

process at sfelections.org/voterportal. If it has been

more than three days since your ballot was mailed,

you may request a replacement vote-by-mail ballot

at sfelections.org/voterportal or by calling the

Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375.

How can I get a replacement vote-by-mail ballot?

To request a replacement vote-by-mail ballot before

February 29, go to sfelections.org/voterportal or call

the Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375. After

that date, contact the Department as soon as possible

to discuss your voting options.

Can I use the Accessible Vote-by-Mail (AVBM)

system to access my ballot?

Any voter can access and mark their ballot at

sfelections.org/access. AVBM ballots must be printed

and returned by mail or in person.

How can I track my vote-by-mail ballot?

You can track your vote-by-mail ballot from assembly

up through delivery, verification, and counting, at

sfelections.org/voterportal. Or, sign up to receive

ballot notifications via email, text, or voice message at

wheresmyballot.sos.ca.gov. Alternatively, you may call

or email the Department of Elections.

Vote-By-Mail Ballot Return FAQs

Can I return my ballot by mail on Election Day?

For your ballot to be counted, your ballot return

envelope must be postmarked by Election Day, March

5. If you mail your ballot return envelope after the last

mail collection time on Election Day, your ballot will

be postmarked too late to be counted. Find United

States Post Office box locations and pickup times at

usps.com/locator.

How should I sign the ballot return envelope?

Sign your envelope with the signature you last

provided on your voter registration application. If

your name or signature has recently changed, please

reregister at registertovote.ca.gov. If you do not

sign your ballot return envelope or if your envelope

signature does not match any signature in your voter

record, the Department will attempt to contact you by

mail, and you will need to cure the issue before your

ballot can be counted.

Where can I drop o my vote-by-mail ballot?

From February 5 to March 4, you can return your

ballot to any official ballot drop box or the City Hall

Voting Center. On Election Day, March 5, you can

return your ballot to any official ballot drop box, the

City Hall Voting Center, or any polling place in the City

no later than 8 p.m. To find a conveniently located

ballot drop box, go to sfelections.org/ballotdropoff or

call (415) 554-4375.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP30

In-Person Voting FAQs

Can I vote early in person in the March 5 election?

The City Hall Voting Center will be open at these times:

• Every weekday, February 5–March 4, from 8 a.m. to

5 p.m. (the Voting Center is closed on Presidents’

Day, Monday, February 19);

• Last two weekends, February 24–25 and March 2–3,

from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and

• Election Day, March 5, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. (same

voting hours as polling places).

Can I vote at any polling place in San Francisco?

There will be 501 polling places open for in-person

voting and vote-by-mail ballot drop off on Election

Day, March 5, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. You are encour-

aged to vote at your assigned polling place. If you

vote at another polling place, your name will not be

on the roster of voters and you will be asked to vote a

provisional ballot.

What kind of multilingual resources are available at

in-person voting sites?

Both the City Hall Voting Center and all San Francisco

polling places will offer bilingual ballots in English

and either Chinese, Spanish or Filipino. In addition,

voting sites will also offer facsimile (reference) ballots

in Burmese, Japanese, Korean, Thai and Vietnamese.

Finally, bilingual workers will provide multilingual

assistance at voting sites in most neighborhoods.

What kind of accessibility resources are available at

in-person voting sites?

All in-person voting sites will offer curbside voting

service as well as accessible voting equipment,

tools, and personal assistance. Any voter may ask

one or two people to assist them with marking a

ballot, provided any such assistant is not the voter’s

employer or a representative of the voter’s union and

the assistant does not attempt to influence the voter.

Can I take my Sample Ballot or my own list into the

voting booth?

Yes. Deciding your votes before you get to the polls is

helpful. You may use your Sample Ballot or the Ballot

Worksheet in this pamphlet to practice marking your

selection(s) before marking your official ballot.

Do I have to vote on every contest and measure on

the ballot?

No. The votes you cast will be counted even if you

have not voted on every contest and measure.

Have more

questions?

You can email us at

sfvote@sfgov.org,

call (415) 554-4375,

or visit our oce at

City Hall, Room 48.

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP31

Words You Need to Know

By the Ballot Simplification Committee

100% Affordable Housing: A building is considered

100% Affordable Housing if all of its housing units are

dedicated to Extremely low-, Very low-, Lower- and/

or Moderate-Income households and, subject to

state and/or local funding requirements, the average

income for all of the units will be no higher than 80%

of median income. (Bond)

Affordable Housing for Extremely Low-Income

Household: Housing units that households with

extremely low-income would be able to afford. A

household qualifies as extremely low-income if it

earns up to 30% of the median income. (Bond)

Affordable Housing for Very Low-Income Household:

Housing units that households with very low income

would be able to afford. A household qualifies as

very low-income if it earns up to 50% of the median

income. (Bond)

Affordable Housing for Lower-Income Household:

Housing units that households with lower income

would be able to afford. A household qualifies as

lower income if it earns up to 80% of the median

income. (Bond)

Affordable Housing for Moderate-Income Household:

Housing units that households with moderate income

would be able to afford. A household qualifies as

moderate income if it earns up to 120% of the median

income. (Bond)

Median Income: An income level published by

the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community

Development for San Francisco based, in part, on all

incomes earned within the United States Department

of Housing and Urban Development Metro Fair

Market Rent Area that contains San Francisco, and is

adjusted based on historical income growth trends

for San Francisco. In 2023, the median income for the

following percentages and family size is as follows:

Person

30% of Median Income

(Extremely Low-Income)

$30,250 $34,600 $38,900 $43,250

50% of Median Income

(Very Low-Income)

$50,450 $57,650 $64,850 $72,050

80% of Median

Income (Lower-Income)

$80,700 $92,250 $103,750 $115,300

120% of Median Income

(Moderate-Income)

$121,000 $138,350 $155,650 $172,900

(Bond)

Amend: To change. (Ethics, Transfer Tax, Police

Funding)

Appropriate Treatment Program: A medical treatment

program that will address the rehabilitation needs of a

patient. (CAAP)

Bond: A bond is a promise by the City to pay back

money borrowed, plus interest, by a specific date.

If the City needs to raise a large amount of money

to pay for a library, sewer line, school, hospital or

other project or program, it may borrow the money

by selling bonds. (see also “General Obligation

Bond.”). (Bond)

Bribery (current): The offering, giving or receiving

of any gift to unlawfully influence the actions of a

government official. (Ethics)

Bribery (if measure passes): The offering, giving,

receiving or soliciting any item of value to unlawfully

influence the actions of a government official. (Ethics)

Campaign Finance: The money or other resources that

people give to support a person running for political

office. (Ethics)

Charter: The Charter is the City’s Constitution adopted

by the voters of San Francisco, relating to how the City

is governed. The Charter can only be changed by a

majority of the votes cast in San Francisco. (general)

Charter Amendment: A change to the City’s Charter.

The Charter is the City’s Constitution. The Charter

can only be changed by a majority of the votes cast.

(Police Funding)

Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee:

A nine-member body that monitors the City's use of

funds generated by issuing general obligation bonds.

Members of this committee are appointed by the

Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, the Controller and

the Civil Grand Jury. (Bond)

County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP): A

government assistance program that requires

each county in California, including San Francisco,

to provide certain benefits to poor residents

who do not qualify for other government benefit

programs. (CAAP)

Words

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP32

Drone: A remote-controlled flying device equipped

with cameras or sensors that is capable of transmitting

video and photo images to people controlling the

drone in real-time and recording video and photos for

later viewing. (Police Procedures)

Early Voting: Voting in person at City Hall before

Election Day or mailing a vote-by-mail ballot before

Election Day. (general)

Ethics Commission: A five-member commission

responsible for administering, interpreting and

enforcing City ethics laws, including laws regulating

campaign contributions, conflicts of interest, lobbyists,

campaign consultants, whistleblowing, public records

and public meetings. Members are appointed by the

Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, City Attorney, District

Attorney and Assessor-Recorder. (Ethics)

Entity: An organization, such as a company,

partnership or nonprofit. (Ethics)

Facial Recognition Technology: An automated or

semi-automated process that assists in identifying or

verifying an individual based on an individual’s face.

(Police Procedures)

Fully Fund: As used in Proposition B, means the voters

amend an existing tax or pass a new tax in an amount

sufficient to fully pay for the minimum number of

full-time police officers and amount of police officer

recruitment funding required by that Proposition.

(Police Funding)

General Fund: The part of the City’s budget that can

be used for any City purpose, including general

government use. Money for the General Fund comes

from taxes and fees on properties, businesses, sales

and other sources. (Transfer tax)

General Obligation Bond: A promise issued by a

government body to pay back money borrowed, plus

interest, over time by a certain date. The government

body repays the money, plus interest, with property

taxes and can, if necessary, increase property taxes

to repay the bond. General obligation bond measures

must be approved by the voters in San Francisco by a

two-thirds vote. (Bond)

Majority Vote: For the Board of Supervisors, majority

vote in Proposition D and Proposition E means a vote

of 6 out of 11 members. For the Ethics Commission,

majority vote in Proposition D means a vote of 3 out of

5 members.

Monetary Penalty: Money, generally capped at a

certain amount, that a person can be ordered to pay as

punishment for violating a law. (Ethics)

Ordinance: A local law passed by the Board of

Supervisors or by the voters. (general)

Property Tax: A tax assessed by the City on buildings

and land. (Transfer tax)

Proposition: Any measure that is submitted to the

voters for approval or disapproval. (general)

Provisional Ballot: A ballot cast at a polling place

that will not be counted until the Department of

Elections verifies the voter’s eligibility to cast that

ballot. (general)

Qualified Write-In Candidate: A person who has

completed the required paperwork and signatures for

inclusion as a write-in candidate. Although the name

of this person will not appear on the ballot, voters

can vote for this person by writing the name of the

person in the space on the ballot provided for write-in

votes and following specific ballot instructions. The

Department of Elections counts write-in votes only for

qualified write-in candidates. (general)

Supermajority Vote: For the Board of Supervisors,

supermajority vote in Proposition D and Proposition E

means a vote of 8 out of 11 members. For the Ethics

Commission, supermajority vote in Proposition D

means a vote of 4 out of 5 members.

Surveillance Technology: Software, electronic devices,

or other electronic tools designed to collect and store

information. (Police Procedures)

Transfer Tax: A tax on the passing of property from one

person or entity to another. (Transfer tax)

Vote-By-Mail Ballot: Ballots mailed to voters or given

to voters in person at the Department of Elections.

Vote-by-mail ballots can be mailed to the Department

of Elections, turned in on or before Election Day at the

Department of Elections office in City Hall or at the

City Hall Voting Center, or turned in on Election Day at

any California polling place. They are also known as

absentee ballots. (general)

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP33

Local Ballot Measure and Argument Information

Pursuant to local law, this pamphlet includes the following information related to local

ballot measures:

1. The identification of each measure by letter and title,

2. The City Attorney’s statement or question,

3. The Ballot Simplification Committee’s digest (summary),

4. The Controller's financial analysis,

5. An explanation of how the measure qualified to be on the ballot,

6. Arguments submitted to the Department,

7. The legal text which begins on page 100, and

8. Any additional information required by the San Francisco Municipal Elections Code (SFMEC) §500.

The following arguments may be provided for a local ballot measure:

1. One proponent’s argument selected in accordance with SFMEC §545 and printed free of charge,

2. One opponent’s argument selected in accordance with SFMEC §545 and printed free of charge,

3. One rebuttal to each of the measure’s proponent’s or opponent’s arguments, selected in accordance with

SFMEC §550 and printed free of charge.

4. Any paid arguments, submitted in accordance with SFMEC §555-570. (All of the paid arguments in favor of

a measure are printed together, followed by all paid arguments opposed to that measure. All arguments are

strictly the opinions of their authors and are printed as submitted, including any typographical, spelling, or

grammatical errors).

Visit our

website

Visit sfelections.org or

scan the code on the right

to learn more about voting

in San Francisco!

38-EN-M24-CP34

Local Ballot Measures

An Overview of San Francisco’s Debt

What is Bond Financing?

Bond nancing is a long-term borrowing strategy

used to raise money for capital projects such as re

and police stations, affordable housing programs,

hospitals, libraries, parks, and other city facilities.

The City receives money upfront by selling bonds

to investors. Then, over time, the City pays those

investors back for the original amount borrowed plus

interest. Because capital projects provide a public

benet that will last many years, bond nancing

allows the City and its residents to pay for that benet

over the useful life of the capital improvement, rather

than needing to pay for potentially large dollar costs

all at once.

Types of Bonds

There are two major types of bonds —

General Obligation Bonds and Revenue Bonds.

General Obligation Bonds

General Obligation Bonds issued by the City must be

approved by two-thirds of the voters. The City issues

general obligation bonds that are used to pay for

capital projects that benefit citizens but do not raise

revenue (for example, police stations or parks are not

set up to pay for themselves). When general obliga-

tion bonds are approved and sold, they are repaid by

property taxes.

Revenue Bonds

Revenue Bonds are used to pay for capital projects,

such as major improvements to an airport, water

system, garage, or other large public facilities that

generate revenue. When revenue bonds are approved

and sold, they are generally repaid from revenues

generated by the bond-nanced projects, for example

usage fees or parking fees. Under the Charter, revenue

bonds must be approved by a majority vote, subject to

certain exceptions; for example, revenue bonds issued

to nance MTA, SFPUC, Port or Airport capital projects

and secured solely by each department’s revenues

are not subject to voter approval. There is no revenue

bond on this ballot.

What Does it Cost to Borrow?

The City’s cost to borrow money depends on the

total dollar amount borrowed, the interest rate on

the borrowed amount, and the number of years

over which the debt will be repaid. City borrowings

are typically repaid over a period of 20 to 30 years.

Assuming an average interest rate of 6%, the cost of

paying off debt over 20 years is about $1.74 for each

dollar borrowed — $1 for the amount borrowed and

74 cents for the interest. These payments, however,

are spread over the 20-year period. Therefore ination

reduces the effective cost of borrowing because the

future payments are made with cheaper dollars.

Assuming a 4% annual ination rate, the cost of

paying off debt in today’s dollars would be about

$1.18 for every $1 borrowed.

The City’s Current Debt Situation

Debt Payments

During scal year 2022–2023 property taxpayers in

the City paid approximately $597 million of principal

and interest on outstanding general obligation bonds

of the City and the other issuers of general obligation

bond debt (these are the San Francisco Community

College District, San Francisco Unied School District

and Bay Area Rapid Transit District). The net property

tax rate for the year to provide for debt and special

funds debt requirements was 17.97 cents per $100 of

assessed valuation, or an estimated $1,246 on a home

assessed at $700,000, reecting a $7,000 homeowner’s

exemption.

Legal Debt Limit

The City Charter imposes a limit on the amount

of general obligation bonds the City can have

outstanding at any given time. That limit is 3% of the

assessed value of taxable property in the City — or

currently about $10.32 billion. Voters give the City

authorization to issue bonds. Those bonds that have

been issued and not yet repaid are considered to be

outstanding. As of December 1, 2023, there was $2.58

billion in outstanding general obligation bonds, which

is equal to 0.80% of the assessed value of taxable

38-EN-M24-CP35

Local Ballot Measures

property. There is an additional $1.26 billion in bonds

that are authorized but unissued. If these bonds were

issued and outstanding, the total debt burden would

be 1.12% of the assessed value of taxable property.

Bonds issued by the San Francisco Community College

District, San Francisco Unied School District, and

Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) do not increase

the City’s debt burden for the purposes of the Charter

limit, however they are repaid by property taxes

(see Prudent Debt Management below). Part of the

City’s current debt management policy is to keep the

property tax rate from City general obligation bonds

below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds as older

ones are retired and the tax base grows, though this

overall property tax rate may vary based on other

factors. This policy applies to the bonds of the City and

County, but not those of other governments, such as

the San Francisco Unied School District,

San Francisco City College District, or BART.

Prudent Debt Management

Even though the City is well within its legal debt limit

in issuing general obligation bonds, there are other

debt comparisons used by bond rating agencies when

they view the City’s nancial health. These agencies

look at many types of local and regional debt that are

dependent on the City’s tax base including our general

obligation bonds, lease revenue bonds, certicates of

participation, special assessment bonds, BART, and

school and community college district bonds. The

“direct debt ratio” which includes direct debt and other

long-term obligations and excludes special assessment

bonds, BART, and school and community college

district bonds, is equal to approximately 1.22% of the

assessed value of taxable property. This direct debt

ratio is considered by the bond rating agencies to be a

“moderate” debt burden relative to the size of

San Francisco’s property tax base.

While this ratio is

within the comparable benchmarks,

the City needs to

continue to set priorities for future debt issuances

to maintain good credit ratings, which are a sign of

good nancial health.

Citizen Oversight of General

Obligation Bonds

Voters must approve the purpose and amount of the

money to be borrowed through bonds. Bond money

may be spent only for the purposes approved by the

voters.

For general obligation bonds issued by the City

and County of San Francisco, the Citizens’ General

Obligation Bond Oversight Committee reviews

and reports on how bond money is spent. The

nine members of the Committee are appointed by

the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, Controller, and

Civil Grand Jury. If the Committee nds that bond

money has been spent for purposes not approved

by the voters, the Committee can require corrective

action and prohibit the sale of any authorized but

unissued bonds until such action is taken. The Board

of Supervisors can reverse the decisions of the

committee by a two-thirds vote. The Controller may

audit any of the City’s bond expenditures.

Prepared by Ben Roseneld, Controller

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

YES

38-EN-M24-CP36

This measure requires 66⅔% afrmative votes to pass.

SAN FRANCISCO AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS. To construct,

develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate housing, including workforce

housing and senior housing, that will be affordable to households

ranging from extremely low-income to moderate-income households;

shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $300,000,000 in

general obligation bonds, subject to independent citizen oversight

and regular audits, with a duration of up to 30 years from the time of

issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.0057/$100 of assessed

property value, and projected average annual revenues of $25,000,000?

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A

A – Aordable Housing Bonds

Digest by the Ballot Simpliﬁcation Committee

The Way It Is Now: The City provides funding to

acquire, build or rehabilitate affordable housing to

meet the needs of San Francisco residents, includ-

ing housing that is affordable for extremely low- to

moderate-income households. The City’s funding for

affordable housing comes from sources, including

property taxes, hotel taxes and developer fees.

The City also issues general obligation bonds

approved by the voters. The City sometimes makes

additional funding available from other public and

private sources.

State law requires San Francisco to build or allow to

be built 46,598 very low- to moderate-income housing

units by 2031, or face penalties. The state’s financial

contribution is not enough to meet this requirement,

so the City must create its own funding.

The Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight

Committee audits the expenditure of these

bond proceeds.

The Proposal: Proposition A is an ordinance that would

allow the City to borrow up to $300 million by issuing

general obligation bonds. The City would use:

• Up to $240 million to construct, develop, acquire

or rehabilitate new rental housing, including

senior housing and workforce housing, for

extremely low-income, very low-income and lower-

income households;

• Up to $30 million to construct, develop, acquire

or rehabilitate existing housing to preserve it

as affordable for lower-income households and

moderate-income households; and

• Up to $30 million to construct, develop, acquire or

rehabilitate housing for extremely low-income, very

low-income and/or lower-income households who

need safe and stable housing and are experiencing

street violence, domestic violence and abuse, sexual

abuse and assault, human trafficking or other trauma

relating to homelessness.

City policy is to limit the amount of money it borrows

by issuing new bonds only as prior bonds are paid

off. An increase in the property tax would be allowed

if needed. Landlords would be permitted to pass

through up to 50% of any resulting property tax

increase to tenants.

Proposition A also would require the Citizens’ General

Obligation Bond Oversight Committee to audit the

spending of bond funds.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

38-EN-M24-CP37

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want the

City to issue $300 million in general obligation bonds

to construct, develop, acquire or rehabilitate affordable

housing in San Francisco.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want

the City to issue these bonds.

Controller's Statement on "A"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following

statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition A:

Should the proposed $300 million in bonds be

authorized and sold under current assumptions, the

approximate costs will be as follows:

a) In Fiscal Year (FY) 2025–2026, following issuance

of the first series of bonds, the best estimate of the

tax required to fund this bond issue would result in

a property tax rate of $0.0041 per $100 ($4.10 per

$100,000) of assessed valuation.

b) In FY 2027–2028, following issuance of the last

series of bonds, the best estimate of the tax

required to fund this bond issue would result in

a property tax rate of $0.0079 per $100 ($7.90 per

$100,000) of assessed valuation.

c) The best estimate of the average tax rate for these

bonds from FY 2025–2026 through FY 2046–2047

is $0.0057 per $100 ($5.70 per $100,000) of

assessed valuation.

d) Based on these estimates, the highest estimated

annual property tax cost for these bonds for

the owner of a home with an assessed value of

$700,000 would be approximately $55.00.

The best estimate of total debt service, including

principal and interest, that would be required to be

repaid if all proposed $300 million in bonds are issued

and sold, would be approximately $544.5 million.

These estimates are based on projections only,

which are not binding upon the City. Projections and

estimates may vary due to the timing of bond sales,

the amount of bonds sold at each sale, and actual

assessed valuation over the term of repayment of

the bonds. Hence, the actual tax rate and the years in

which such rates are applicable may vary from those

estimated above. The City’s current non-binding debt

management policy is to keep the property tax rate for

City general obligation bonds below the 2006 rate by

issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and the

tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary

based on other factors.

How "A" Got on the Ballot

On November 14, 2023, the Board of Supervisors

voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition A on the ballot. The

Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Chan, Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Melgar,

Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton.

No: None.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP38

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A

YES ON A: SAN FRANCISCO NEEDS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Housing affordability is one of the most pressing chal-

lenges facing San Francisco today. Wages have not

kept up with the cost of housing and we are at risk of

losing the diverse community of firefighters, teachers,

nurses, veterans, families, and seniors who make

San Francisco a special place to live.

That's why we've come together to champion

Proposition A—a critical solution to our housing afford-

ability crisis. Proposition A will:

• Provide essential affordable housing for working

parents and families so they can continue to live and

work in San Francisco.

• Secure housing for seniors on fixed incomes who

are having to choose between paying for housing

and purchasing groceries and necessities.

• Provide affordable housing for first responders so

they can both live and work in the city and be avail-

able if an earthquake or other disaster strikes.

• Help San Francisco meet our State RHNA housing

goals which require us to approve 46,000 afford-

able housing units in the next eight years or lose

state funding.

• Implement stringent fiscal controls and robust

oversight including annual independent audits and

review of all spending to ensure that funds are used

as promised.

• Earn matching funds from state and federal afford-

able housing programs with a goal of doubling our

investment for housing.

• Not increase property tax rates, so that neither

homeowners or renters will see an increase in hous-

ing costs as a result of the bond.

On March 5th, let's take a decisive step. Join us and

vote Yes on Prop A to secure affordable housing for

San Francisco's future.

Mayor London Breed

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

San Francisco Labor Council

Council of Community Housing Organizations

San Francisco Council of District Merchants

Associations

SPUR

Senior and Disability Action

United Educators of San Francisco

San Francisco Women's Political Committee

Mission Housing Development Corporation

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! Visit:

http://bigfraud.com

During the pandemic. 65,000 people left

San Francisco—

7.7% of the population—the worst

decline in five generations, hollowing-out our urban

center. Why build 82,000 new units regardless?

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

state mandates.

Already approved Bonds fully fund "Affordable

Housing" for 5 more years.

Interest rates have skyrocketed. The SF Controller now

estimates Proposition A will cost $545 million, not

$300 million.

Landlords can pass 50% of higher property taxes

on to Renters.

The Planning Department admits that Proposition A

will demolish rent-controlled units to make room for

"Affordable Housing."

This is a lottery system. The luck of the draw is

not fairness.

The political tide has turned, evaporating state and

federal money. Don't be fooled. "Grants" from above

won't prevent steep property taxes increases.

Vote NO on Proposition A

Larry S. Marso, Esq.

A Nob Hill resident, Mr. Marso is a technology execu-

tive, M&A advisor, attorney, and syndicated columnist.

As a delegate of the San Francisco Republican County

Central Committee, he represents voters in Assembly

District 17. In 2020, Mr. Marso was a candidate for

Chair of the SFGOP, a presidential campaign consul-

tant, and a nationally recognized expert on electronic

voting systems.

Vote NO on Proposition A

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! Visit:

http://bigfraud.com

Larry S. Marso

Proponent’s Argument Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP39

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! Visit:

http://bigfraud.com

The Mayor and Board of Supervisors have embraced

insane state mandates to build 82,000 new San Francisco

homes over 5 years. Their plan changes the character

of every neighborhood, buldozes the West Side, and

brings poverty, drugs, crime and homelessness to a

street corner near you.

Vote NO on Proposition A to stop it.

For a decade, San Francisco taxpayers poured $1.5

billion into "affordable housing" schemes, including

a $600 million bond (2019) and a $245 million bond

(2020). Why another $300 million bond now? The city's

borrowing capacity is nearly exhausted. Big trouble

ahead for infrastructure bonds: Earthquake Safety,

Healthcare and Waterfront Safety.

The Mayor's Office of Housing and Community

Development ended 2022 with $537 million in excess

funds. It doesn't need the money.

Not a penny of "affordable housing" programs benefit

existing home owners and renters. Proposition A's

radical agenda is state ownership and control of

the real estate market, the end of vacancy decontrol

("Costa Hawkins"), dismantling Proposition 13 and

dramatically higher property taxes.

I led the campaign against the 2022 MUNI bond, a

victory for taxpayers. We cut future property taxes by

$4,000 per homeowner. Let's do it again.

Larry S. Marso, Esq.

A Nob Hill resident, Mr. Marso is a technology execu-

tive, M&A advisor, attorney, and syndicated columnist.

As a delegate of the San Francisco Republican County

Central Committee, he represents voters in Assembly

District 17. In 2020, Mr. Marso was a candidate for

Chair of the SFGOP, a presidential campaign consul-

tant, and a nationally recognized expert on electronic

voting systems.

Vote NO on Proposition A

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! Visit:

http://bigfraud.com

Larry S. Marso

YES ON A: A REAL SOLUTION FOR AFFORDABLE

HOUSING SUPPORTED BY A UNITED SAN FRANCISCO

Yes on A is supported by a diverse coalition from every

corner of San Francisco: nonprofit affordable housing

groups, educators, labor, community organizations,

pro-housing advocates, and advocates for seniors,

women and renters.

Here's why:

• Creates 1,500 new affordable homes for struggling

San Franciscans

• Does not increase property tax rates, so neither

homeowners or renters will see an increase in

housing costs

• Requires annual independent audits and review of

all spending by a citizen committee

• Secures housing for seniors on fixed incomes

• Provides affordable housing for first responders

• Creates women-focused affordable housing for

survivors of domestic abuse and assault

• Helps San Francisco meet our State RHNA housing

goals, 46,000 affordable housing units in the next

eight years or lose state funding

• Earns matching funds from state and federal afford-

able housing programs with a goal of doubling our

investment for housing

Please join our united coalition working together

for solutions to San Francisco's housing crisis.

Vote YES on A!

Mayor London Breed

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

San Francisco Labor Council

Council of Community Housing Organizations

San Francisco Council of District Merchants

Associations

SPUR

Senior and Disability Action

United Educators of San Francisco

San Francisco Women's Political Committee

Mission Housing Development Corporation

Opponent's Argument Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument

38-EN-M24-CP40

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A – Paid Arguments

Paid Arguments in Favor

YES ON A: ADVANCING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Affordable housing bonds in 2015 and 2019 marked

crucial steps in addressing San Francisco’s housing

crisis, providing over 5,000 homes for teachers,

veterans, seniors, and low-income working families.

We can’t stop now.

Yes on A is the next essential move. This prop-

osition will:

• Extend affordable housing opportunities to

thousands more San Francisco families.

• Provide the vital resources to maintain progress in

moving along the over 10,000 affordable housing

units in the construction pipeline in San Francisco

• Earn matching funds from state and federal

affordable housing programs with a goal of doubling

our investment for housing.

The affordable housing crisis demands urgency. On

March 5th, your vote for Yes on A is a vote to secure

affordable housing for our community’s future.

Council of Community Housing Organizations

Bill Sorro Housing Program (BiSHOP)

Chinatown Community Development Center

Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council

Mercy Housing California

Mission Housing Development Corporation

Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern

California (NPH)

Richmond District Democratic Club

San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund

San Francisco Housing Development Corporation

San Francisco Human Services Network

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRATS UNITE: YES ON A FOR

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Affordable housing is a core value of the Democratic

Party at the local, state, and national level and a critical

component of our commitment to a more equitable

and inclusive San Francisco.

Proposition A is so important to San Francisco

Democrats. Here is what the proposition will provide:

• Affordable Housing for Local Workers

o San Francisco’s housing market has reached

staggering heights, with the annual income

needed to purchase an average-priced home

exceeding one million dollars. This is far beyond

what typical workers, including nurses, teachers,

and essential workers, can afford. Proposition

A is our opportunity to address this crisis and

ensure that local workers can continue to call

San Francisco home.

• Support for Working Families and Seniors

o We believe that working parents and seniors

should not only afford housing but also have

enough money for groceries and necessities.

Unfortunately, skyrocketing rents have made

this impossible for too many in our community.

Proposition A is a step toward making

San Francisco a place where all people can

afford to live.

• Accountability to taxpayers

o Yes on A follows San Francisco’s long-standing

policy of not increasing property tax rates.

Additionally, it ensures strict accountability,

with independent annual financial audits, citizen

oversight committee reviews, and a clear prohibi-

tion on using Yes on A funding for administrators’

salaries or pensions.

As Democrats, we stand united in our support for

Proposition A. On March 5th, join us in voting Yes on

Proposition A. It’s a commitment to affordable housing

and a brighter future for our city.

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: HELP SENIORS STRUGGLING ON

FIXED INCOMES

San Francisco’s senior citizens have given their best

years to our city, and now, in their golden years,

they deserve dignity, security, and affordability in

their housing.

The challenges are real. Seniors living on fixed

incomes are struggling to keep pace with rising

38-EN-M24-CP41

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A – Paid Arguments

housing costs. For many low-income seniors, the

situation is dire, with some spending 75% or more of

their monthly, fixed income on rent alone. It’s a heart-

breaking reality, forcing our seniors to make impossible

choices between housing, food, and other necessities.

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

• Secure housing for seniors on fixed incomes who

are having to choose between paying for housing

and purchasing groceries and necessities.

• Not increase property tax rates, so that neither

homeowners or renters will see an increase in

housing costs as a result of the bond.

• Implement stringent fiscal controls and robust

oversight including annual independent audits and

review of all spending to ensure that funds are used

as promised.

In short, this proposition will provide affordable

housing options for seniors that they desperately

need. It’s a beacon of hope in a city where housing

costs have spiraled out of control. As senior advocacy

organizations, we stand united in our support for

Proposition A.

Senior and Disability Action

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

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: A SOLUTION TO SOARING RENTS

The struggle is real, and we get it. Skyrocketing

rents have made it increasingly impossible to afford

housing while keeping up with the rising costs of

daily life. Many of us, including hardworking parents

and seniors, are forced to make the impossible choice

between putting a roof over our heads or putting food

on the table.

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

• Build thousands of truly affordable homes, help-

ing to reverse gentrification and displacement

that are tearing communities from their historic

neighborhoods.

• Dedicate $30 million for creating housing for women

and women-identified people who experience sexual

assault or violence on city streets or in coed shelters

and need housing to stabilize safely without fear of

further abuse.

• Help our communities of color and LGBTQ+ citizens

who have been badly hurt by the city’s skyrocketing

cost of housing. This measure will provide hous-

ing to support those most impacted by the rising

cost of living, to ensure they can live and thrive in

San Francisco.

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

Affordable Housing Alliance

Community Tenants Association

Eviction Defense Collaborative

Housing Rights Committee, Inc

North Beach Tenants Committee

People Organized to Demand Economic and

Environmental Rights (PODER)

Public Housing Tenant Association (PHTA)

San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition

San Francisco Tenants Union

South of Market Community Action

Network (SOMCAN)

Tenants and Owners Development

Corporation (TODCO)

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: HOUSING SOLUTIONS FOR EDUCATORS

AND HOMELESS YOUTH

As educators, we witness the struggles of working

families with children every day. The soaring cost of

housing in San Francisco has created a heartbreaking

reality: many of our students and their families are

grappling with homelessness, and it’s impacting their

ability to learn and thrive.

Here are the facts: San Francisco has an estimated

7,754 homeless individuals, with 1,073 of them being

homeless youth. Shockingly, 4% of San Francisco

public school students, totaling over 2,300 individual

students, are experiencing homelessness.

To address these problems, educators are supporting

Yes on A. This critical measure tackles the housing

38-EN-M24-CP42

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A – Paid Arguments

crisis head-on, with a focus on helping educators,

families, and homeless youth.

Proposition A provides:

• Essential affordable housing for working parents

and families so they can continue to live and work in

San Francisco

• No increase in property tax rates, so that neither

homeowners or renters will see an increase in hous-

ing costs as a result of the bond

• Help for San Francisco to meet our State RHNA

housing goals which require us to approve 46,000

affordable housing units in the next eight years for

more San Francisco children and families

Our mission as educators is to empower and uplift the

next generation. Proposition A aligns perfectly with

this mission, offering hope and a path toward brighter

futures for our students and their families.

On March 5th, stand with us and vote Yes on

Proposition A. Let’s make housing solutions for

educators, working families, and homeless youth a

reality in San Francisco.

United Educators of San Francisco

Larkin Street Youth Services

Young Community Developers

Alan Wong, President, City College Board of Trustees

Susan Solomon, City College Board of Trustees

Shanell Williams, City College Board of Trustees

Alida Fisher, Commissioner, San Francisco Board

of Education

Jenny Lam, Commissioner, San Francisco Board

of Education

Lisa Weissman-Ward, Commissioner, San Francisco

Board of Education

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY, INDEPENDENT

AUDITS, AND NO TAX RAISES

We are supporting Proposition A not only because it

funds essential affordable housing for residents, but

also because the measure includes strict accountabil-

ity rules and oversight to ensure the funds we approve

are spent on time and on budget.

Proposition A:

• Is governed by San Francisco’s Capital Plan, which

has a solid track record of fiscal accountability and

proven results

• Requires annual independent audits and review of

all spending required, ensuring that funds are used

as promised and the City’s Capital Plan continues to

deliver on the projects it outlines.

As part of the City’s Capital Plan, property tax rates

will NOT increase under Proposition A. New bonds are

only issued as previously approved bond funds are

retired, meaning our tax rates stay the same, without

any increase. That’s the kind of fiscal responsibility

we support.

Join us in support and vote yes on Proposition A!

SPUR

Building Owners and Managers Association of

San Francisco

Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SURVIVORS

OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

According to the San Francisco Department on

the Status of Women, 70% of domestic violence

victims are women.

There is a significant need for safe housing for

survivors of domestic and family violence in

San Francisco, as historically less than 5% of shelter

and supportive housing has been directed to

women-only spaces.

Proposition A:

• Specifically directs funding for the preservation

and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing for

victims and survivors of trafficking and domestic

violence, helping those who are escaping abuse to

recover and stabilize in a safe, secure and peaceful

environment.

Proposition A finally begins to address the affordable

housing needs of this community, bringing women’s

issues into the light and giving the community hope

that they are valued and deserving of safe housing.

38-EN-M24-CP43

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A – Paid Arguments

Join us in supporting Proposition A for safe, affordable

housing for survivors of domestic abuse. Vote Yes on

Proposition A!

San Francisco Women’s Political Committee

Women’s Housing Coalition

San Francisco Safehouse

Community Forward SF

Roma P. Guy, Former Health Commissioner

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: PROPOSITION A HELPS MEET STATE

HOUSING GOALS AND KEEP STATE FUNDING

San Francisco is required by the State to approve

46,000 affordable housing units in the next eight years.

If we don’t meet that goal we will lose state funding for

essential city services including funding for transporta-

tion and affordable housing.

Proposition A:

• Is essential to helping construct affordable housing

and help us meet those strict housing production

requirements and avoid harsh penalties.

• Qualifies our city to earn matching funds from state

and federal affordable housing programs with a

goal of doubling our investment for housing, help-

ing us reach our affordable housing requirements

even faster.

• Protects the state funding we depend on for

transportation and affordable housing, while

helping us achieve our state mandated affordable

housing goals.

• Is needed now more than ever as market rate hous-

ing, which typically funds much of our affordable

housing production, is at a standstill due to high

interest rates and construction costs.

Join us in support and vote yes on Proposition A!

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi

Senator Scott Wiener

California State Treasurer Fiona Ma

California State Controller Malia Cohen

Assemblymember Phil Ting

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

SAN FRANCISCO’S ELECTED LEADERS ARE UNITED:

YES ON A

We are a diverse City with diverse opinions on diverse

issues. But we all wholeheartedly support Proposition

A to fund and build more affordable housing, without

raising anyone’s taxes.

Proposition A is the critical next step in San Francisco’s

Capital Plan that has already built thousands of

affordable housing units thanks to past housing bonds,

delivered on time and on budget.

Proposition A:

• An essential piece of our plan to meet state

mandated affordable housing goals of 46,000 units

in the next eight years, or risk losing transportation

and housing funding.

• Requires annual independent audits and review

of all spending to ensure that funds are used

as promised.

• Funding will be matched with state and federal

affordable housing dollars, doubling our invest-

ment in housing.

• Does not increase property tax rates. No one will see

an increase in taxes as a result of Proposition A.

We are working together in support of Proposition A.

Join us and let’s move our city forward!

Mayor London Breed

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

Assessor Joaquín Torres

San Francisco Public Defender Manohar Raju

Supervisor Connie Chan

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Myrna Melgar

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Ahsha Safaí

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Shamann Walton

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

38-EN-M24-CP44

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A – Paid Arguments

YES ON A: HOUSING EQUITY FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S

AFRICAN AMERICAN RESIDENTS

Our community has faced housing challenges for far

too long. San Francisco’s African Americans have been

disproportionately affected by the housing crisis, and

it’s time for change. Proposition A provides a ray of

hope, not just for us but for the entire city.

Here are the facts:

• African Americans have the lowest rate of home-

ownership in San Francisco, at just 31%. Many

are burdened by the cost of homeownership, with

some spending more than 30% or even 50% of their

income on housing.

• African Americans make up 37% of the City’s

unhoused population, despite comprising only 6% of

the city’s overall population.

• Our community has suffered displacement for

decades, consistently declining in every census

count since 1970. Discriminatory practices among

landlords and property managers have made it even

harder, especially for Black women with children,

who are often denied housing opportunities.

As African American leaders, we stand united in

our support for Proposition A. On March 5th, let’s

take a stand for housing justice and vote Yes on

Proposition A.

California State Controller Malia Cohen

Mayor London Breed

Supervisor Shamann Walton

San Francisco Democratic Party Chair

Honey Mahogany

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair

Leah LaCroix

City College Trustee Shanell Williams

Former Supervisor Sophie Maxwell

Reverend Amos Brown

Reverend James McCray, Tabernacle Community

Development Corporation (TCDC)

Linda Richardson, VP, Treasure Island Development

Authority (TIDA)*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: HOUSING SOLUTIONS FOR THE ASIAN

AND PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITY

Our community has been an integral part of

San Francisco’s rich tapestry, contributing to the

city’s vibrancy and cultural diversity for generations.

However, many members of our Asian American

community are facing significant challenges due to the

affordable housing crisis. Voting Yes on A will help.

Proposition A will provide:

• Housing equity for all. The annual income needed to

purchase an average-priced home in San Francisco

exceeds one million dollars. Yes on A will provide

thousands of truly affordable housing opportunities.

• Greater public safety. San Francisco’s vulnerability

to earthquakes and natural disasters requires us

to have first responders who both live and work in

the city. Yes on A provides affordable housing to

ensure that our first responders are always available

close to home.

• Accountability and Transparency. Proposition A

is subject to strict accountability requirements,

including independent annual financial audits and

citizen oversight committee reviews. It ensures that

funds are used exclusively for housing projects,

with no funding directed to administrators' salaries

or pensions.

• A Commitment to No Tax Increase. Importantly,

Proposition A aligns with the city's long-standing

policy of not increasing property tax rates. The

measure has been carefully structured to ensure that

it won't burden our community with higher taxes.

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

Assemblymember Phil Ting

California State Treasurer Fiona Ma

Supervisor Connie Chan

Board of Education Commissioner Jenny Lam

Democratic Party Vice Chair Li Miao Lovett

DCCC Member Zhihan Zou

Former Supervisor Jane Kim

Former Supervisor Gordan Mar

Former Supervisor Norman Yee

Entertainment Commissioner Cyn Wang

Former MTA Board Director Sharon Lai

Marjan Philhour, Co-founder, Balboa Village

Merchants Association

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

Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC)

Rose Pak Democratic Club

Tenderloin Chinese Rights Association

38-EN-M24-CP45

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A – Paid Arguments

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

SMALL BUSINESSES SUPPORT: YES ON A

Proposition A is a smart, responsible measure that will

deliver needed affordable housing in a fiscally respon-

sible way, with strict oversight and accountability over

how funds are spent.

We are small business owners that power our city’s

economic engine, we have to be fiscally responsible

and make sound business decisions to keep our

businesses open and serving the public.

With an eye toward fiscal prudence, we’ve taken a hard

look at Proposition A and are strongly supporting this

measure that is essential in the city’s effort to build

more affordable housing.

• Proposition A is subject to strict accountability

requirements, including independent annual finan-

cial audits and citizen oversight committee reviews.

Proposition A ensures that funds will be spent

as directed on housing, not spent on administra-

tive overhead.

• Proposition A delivers desperately needed affordable

housing without raising property tax rates. As busi-

ness owners, we know firsthand that now is not the

time to raise taxes.

Proposition A delivers affordable housing in a fiscally

responsible manner. That’s a smart business proposal

we can support.

Former Small Business Commission President

Sharky Laguana

San Francisco Council of District Merchants

Associations

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

Small Business Forward

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES IN MY BACKYARD: YES ON A!

San Franciscans are suffering the effects of not

building enough housing for the people who want to

live in our amazing city, and for those who have lived

here for generations but who are being priced out due

to the high cost of scarce housing.

As a result of that failure to build more housing,

San Francisco is now required by the State to approve

46,000 affordable housing units in the next eight

years. If we don’t approve those units, we risk losing

essential state funding for our transportation system

and affordable housing.

Proposition A:

• Will help us meet those ambitious and needed

affordable housing goals.

• Makes fiscal sense because we can leverage state

and federal matching funds to help build more units.

• Makes San Francisco more affordable for those

struggling to get by and prevents more people from

being priced out and losing their home, potentially

ending up on the street.

• Does NOT raise taxes.

Join us in Supporting Proposition A for more housing.

Vote Yes on Proposition A!

GrowSF

Grow the Richmond

Housing Action Coalition

Northern Neighbors

SF YIMBY

Urban Environmentalists

YIMBY Action

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SAN

FRANCISCO’S WORKING FAMILIES

The struggle for San Francisco’s working families

to find affordable housing has reached a breaking

point. Wages have failed to keep pace with the

soaring cost of housing, putting local workers in an

untenable position.

38-EN-M24-CP46

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A – Paid Arguments

The reality is stark: the annual income needed to

buy an average-priced home in San Francisco is

over a million dollars, far beyond the reach of typical

workers, including essential professionals like nurses

and teachers.

Proposition A will:

• Provide essential affordable housing for working

parents and families so they can continue to live and

work in San Francisco.

• Implement stringent fiscal controls and robust

oversight including annual independent audits and

review of all spending to ensure that funds are used

as promised.

• Not increase property tax rates, so that neither

homeowners or renters will see an increase in hous-

ing costs as a result of the bond.

Yes on A is the lifeline that our working families

desperately need. It's a tangible commitment to

ensure that local workers can not only afford to live in

San Francisco but also continue to contribute to our

vibrant community.

San Francisco unions stand united in support of

Prop A. We see firsthand the daily struggles of

working families, and we recognize that this measure

represents a beacon of hope for a brighter future.

Proposition A is an opportunity to take decisive action,

offering a path towards affordable housing that is

long overdue.

Let’s stand together to secure affordable housing for

San Francisco’s working families and ensure that they

can call our city home for generations to come. Vote

Yes on Prop A!

San Francisco Labor Council

Service Employees International Union 1021

California Working Families Party

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: SUPPORTING SAN FRANCISCO’S LATINO

COMMUNITY THROUGH AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Our Latino community is essential to the heart and

soul of San Francisco but we are facing severe housing

challenges. While overall homelessness decreased in

San Francisco during the pandemic, there was a 55%

increase in the number of Latinos who are homeless.

We have witnessed extreme gentrification and

displacement of our community, with over

10,000 Latino residents forced out of the Mission

District since 1990.

That’s why Yes on A is crucial for our Latino

community. Prop A will:

• Provide funding to build, develop, acquire, or

rehabilitate affordable housing, offering stability to

Latino families and our community.

• Not increase taxes, ensuring that neither renters nor

homeowners will face higher housing costs.

As Latino leaders and organizations, we are united in

our support for Proposition A. On March 5th, let’s come

together and vote Yes on A!

Latino Task Force

Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA)

Assessor Joaquín Torres

Former Supervisor John Avalos

San Francisco Democratic Party Corresponding

Secretary Anabel Ibáñez

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: EMPOWERING SAN FRANCISCO’S LGBTQ+

COMMUNITY THROUGH HOUSING

Our LGBTQ+ community is at the heart of what

makes San Francisco vibrant and inclusive. But we

face unique challenges, particularly when it comes to

housing. Wages have not kept up with housing costs,

causing extreme gentrification and displacement in

our community.

In the last homeless youth point-in-time count in 2022,

a staggering 38% of surveyed homeless youth identify

as LGBTQ+. These statistics are a stark reminder of

38-EN-M24-CP47

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A – Paid Arguments

the urgent need for housing solutions tailored to our

community's specific challenges.

Proposition A will:

• Provide essential housing for the most at-risk popu-

lations and communities, ensuring safe housing for

LGBTQ+ youth and adults

• Earn matching funds from state and federal afford-

able housing programs, providing an onramp to

more affordable housing development in the future

• Not increase property tax rates, so neither renters

nor owners will see an increase in housing costs as a

result of the bond

As LGBTQ+ organizations and elected officials, we’re

uniting behind Yes on A as a crucial step toward

empowerment. On March 5th, let’s come together and

vote Yes on A.

Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club

Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

Senator Scott Wiener

Former Senator Mark Leno

Former Assemblymember Tom Ammiano

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

BART Director Bevan Dufty

Luis Zamora, Co-Chair, California Democratic Party

LGBTQ+ Caucus

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

YES ON A: BUILD AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR ALL

Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco works

together with families, local communities, volunteers

and partners to ensure more people are able to live in

affordable and safe homes.

We are supporting Prop A because it helps address

the housing shortage we are facing in San Francisco,

a shortage that creates instability for individuals and

families who want to make San Francisco their home,

but are faced with an average home price greater than

one million dollars.

Prop A supports victims of domestic violence by

dedicating funds to women-only housing. 1 in 3

unhoused women experience sexual assault or

violence on city streets or in coed shelter and need

secure, safe housing to protect from further abuse.

Prop A helps San Francisco meet our state mandated

housing goals which require us to approve 46,000

affordable housing units in the next eight years or lose

state funding for additional affordable housing and

transportation.

Prop A does not raise taxes, and includes strict

accountability requirements, with independent annual

financial audits and citizen oversight.

Proposition A is an important element in the City’s

larger effort to build affordable homes for all, and we

urge you to support this critical measure.

Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Affordable Housing for SF, Yes on A.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Strada Investment Group II, LLC, 2. The Prado Group, Inc.,

3. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company.

No Paid Arguments Against

Proposition A Were Submitted

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

YES

38-EN-M24-CP48

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B

This measure requires 50%+1 afrmative votes to pass.

Digest by the Ballot Simpliﬁcation Committee

The Way It Is Now: The City has a Police Commission

(Commission) that oversees San Francisco Police

Department (SFPD) policies and approves a proposed

budget for the department. The Chief of Police manages

the SFPD’s day-to-day operations.

As of September 2023, the SFPD had 1,578 full-duty

sworn police officers. Every two years, the Chief of Police

must recommend to the Commission the number of

officers needed. The Commission must consider the Chief

of Police’s recommendation before forwarding the SFPD's

proposed budget to the Mayor. Only the Mayor or the

Board of Supervisors (Board) may propose amendments

to the budget.

SFPD staffing and recruitment are paid through the

General Fund. The budget does not have to include

funding for the number of police officers the SFPD recom-

mends. Also, the Charter does not specify a required

minimum number of officers for the SFPD.

The Proposal: Proposition B would amend the Charter to

change the process for establishing and funding mini-

mum police staffing levels for the City, only if voters in a

future election amend an existing tax or approve a new

tax that would fully fund police staffing and recruitment.

In the future, if voters approve full funding, Proposition

B would set the minimum number of full-time police offi-

cers for the City from 1,700 to 2,074 in the first five years.

For those five years, Proposition B would require the City

to budget enough money to pay for at least the number

of police officers employed during the previous year.

If voters approve full funding, after the first five years

Proposition B would require the Police Chief to report

the recommended number of police officers to the

Shall the City amend the Charter to set minimum police officer staffing

levels, require the City to budget enough money to pay the number of police

officers employed in the previous year, allow the Police Department to

introduce amendments to its budget, and set aside funds to pay for police

recruitment, all for at least five years, but all if and only if the voters later

adopt a new tax or amend an existing tax to fund these requirements?

B – Police Ocer Stang Levels Conditioned on

Amending Existing or Future Tax Funding

Commission every five years instead of every two. The

Commission would also be required to set a minimum

number of full-time police officers, which may not be

reduced by more than 5% per year, unless two-thirds of

the Commission votes for a larger reduction.

In the future, if voters approve full funding, Proposition

B would require the Commission to propose a budget

each year that funds the minimum number of full-time

police officers. The SFPD would be authorized to submit

a budget amendment directly to the Board if it is able to

fund more than the minimum number of police officers.

In the future, if voters approve full funding, Proposition B

would create a fund for police recruitment that would last

for five to 10 years. The fund would have $16.8 million in

the first year and would change each year depending on

the number of recruits needed, but would not exceed $30

million per year. The level of funding could be frozen if

there is a budget deficit.

If the voters do not approve full funding in the future,

these changes in police staffing and recruitment would

not go into effect.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to make

the following changes only if voters in a future election

amend an existing tax measure or approve a new tax that

would fully fund police staffing and recruitment to:

• Set minimum levels of police officer staffing in

San Francisco;

• Require the City to budget enough money for at least

five years to pay for the number of police officers

employed during the previous year;

• Change the process of establishing minimum police

staffing levels for the City, including requiring the

Commission to request enough money to pay for mini-

mum police staffing levels;

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

38-EN-M24-CP49

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B

• Allow the SFPD to introduce amendments to its own

budget; and

• Create a fund to set aside money to pay for police

recruiting for at least five years.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to

make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "B"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following

statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition B:

Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved

by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant

impact on the cost of government. These costs will vary

considerably depending on the operational decisions

made by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD)

and decisions made by the Mayor and the Board of

Supervisors through the normal budget process, given

that some requirements established in the measure are

binding while others establish non-binding City policy.

The proposed Charter amendment establishes a bind-

ing required appropriation to a new Police Full Staffing

Fund (Fund) to provide resources to increase staffing

in the department in the five fiscal years after a new or

amended tax measure is passed by the voters that would

generate sufficient revenue to fund to the amendment’s

requirements. The amendment requires the City to

appropriate $16.8 million in FY 2024–2025 to the Fund and

appropriate $75,000 per officer that SFPD is below the

required number of officers each subsequent year, not to

exceed $30 million per fiscal year. Given current staffing

levels versus those required in the measure, it is likely

that future year required appropriations would be signifi-

cant. The measure freezes appropriations to the fund at

the prior year’s level if the budget deficit exceeds $250

million. The amendment would set aside these funds for

recruitment and hiring efforts, advertising, development

and administration of hiring strategies, and funding hiring

incentives for new police officers.

The SFPD currently has approximately 1,580 full-duty

sworn officers. The proposed Charter amendment would

set the required number of full-duty sworn officers to

1,700 in FY 2024–2025, 1,800 in FY 2025–2026, 1,900

in FY 2026–2027, 2,000 in FY 2027–2028, and 2,074 in

FY 2028–2029. Thereafter, staffing level determinations

would be based on an SFPD staffing needs report to the

Police Commission every five years. When compared to

currently budgeted staffing levels and if these goals are

met, this provision would require the City to increase

future fiscal year budgets by approximately $2 million

in the first fiscal year, increasing by approximately $18

million annually for each of the next four years, increas-

ing costs by a cumulative total of $200 million during

this period, assuming no increase in management ranks

needed to support the growth in line staff. This investment

may result in reductions in overtime currently employed

by the department. If these additional full-duty officers

resulted in an hour for hour reduction in overtime use,

this would reduce the estimated cumulative cost by

approximately $130 million, to approximately $70 million.

However, meeting these staffing goals will depend on the

SFPD’s ability to fill positions. Additionally, the ultimate

cost of this provision of the measure will depend on deci-

sions by the Mayor and Board through the City’s annual

budget process, as these staffing levels are not binding

on the decisions the Mayor and Board make during the

annual budget process.

If required staffing level are not achieved, the proposed

amendment requires the Mayor and Board, at a mini-

mum, to appropriate funds for the coming fiscal year

sufficient to maintain police staffing levels at the prior

year level. For context, current staffing levels for the

department would require appropriations of approxi-

mately $475 million in the coming fiscal year, adjusted

each year for changes in staffing levels and employee

wage and benefit changes.

If the Charter amendment is approved, the funding

requirements would be dependent on the Controller

certifying in writing to the Mayor and the Clerk of the

Board of Supervisors that a new or modified tax passed

by the voters will generate sufficient revenue to fund the

required number of full-duty sworn officers and to fund

the new Fund.

This proposed amendment is not in compliance with

a non-binding, voter-adopted city policy regarding set-

asides. The policy seeks to limit set-asides which reduce

General Fund dollars that could otherwise be allocated

by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in the annual

budget process.

The amendment will also create a requirement for the

Controller to set aside and maintain appropriations to the

Fund. Note that the proposed amendment would change

the duties of the Controller’s Office, which has prepared

this statement.

How "B" Got on the Ballot

On November 28, 2023, the Board of Supervisors voted 6

to 5 to place Proposition B on the ballot. The Supervisors

voted as follows:

Yes: Chan, Melgar, Peskin, Safai, Stefani, Walton.

No: Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Preston, Ronen.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP50

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B

“FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE?!”

Proposition B is a misleading mess — brought to

you by supervisors who can’t find enough money

in our $14.6 billion City budget to fully staff our

police department.

That’s not fiscally responsible. That’s galling.

What Proponents’ argument above deceptively fails

to mention is that Prop B’s minimum staffing for

SFPD is “conditioned on future tax funding.” So,

when Proponents promise “by passing Prop. B, we

will achieve minimum police staffing levels,” it’s

patently false.

In fact, Prop. B could only achieve minimum

SFPD staffing…

• If voters approve some future tax…

• In some future election…

• With sufficient future funding.

Prop B is a deceptive “Cop Tax Scheme” that under-

mines public safety.

It will needlessly obstruct and delay progress on police

staffing by serving as a ploy for new tax revenue.

Leaving aside the absurdity of needing additional taxes

to fund our most basic municipal service…

• Prop B would delay voter-mandated progress on

police staffing until late 2025 — at the earliest —

and only if voters approve future taxes in the

next election.

• Prop B is a legally dubious end-run around consti-

tutional restrictions on dedicated “Special Tax”

funding, risking costly lawsuits that could delay

police funding for years.

• Prop B is emblematic of everything wrong with a

Board of Supervisors majority more interested in

performative politics than making the needed

progress San Franciscans demand.

SEND A MESSAGE TO CITY HALL: STOP PLAYING

GAMES WITH PUBLIC SAFETY!

VOTE NO ON PROP B!

Mayor London Breed

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Vote YES on Proposition B

We can achieve minimum police staffing levels and be

fiscally responsible.

Our public safety system is severely understaffed.

A strong public safety system needs fully staffed

departments that include: San Francisco police,

911 call operators, nurses, paramedics, firefighters,

and sheriffs.

In September 2023, there were 1,578 full-duty sworn

San Francisco police officers, approximately 400 short

of our highest historical staffing levels.

Right now, there is no requirement that the City main-

tain a minimum level of police officers. Our current

police staffing levels are impacting how well and how

quickly our public safety system is able to respond

to emergency calls and coordinate a broad level of

services to residents and businesses. San Franciscans

deserve to be safe in all neighborhoods.

The existing police force is exhausting themselves

working overtime to cover the staffing shortages. The

overtime costs are also straining the Police Department

budget and the longevity of experienced officers who

are eligible for retirement.

There are currently 300 fully-funded police officer

positions that remain vacant. We can ensure our

entire public safety system is supported and includes

recruitment funds for more police officers by updat-

ing the process for establishing SFPD’s minimum

staffing levels.

By passing Prop. B, we will achieve minimum police

staffing levels and dedicate future funding to ensure

we are not pitting police officer recruitment against 911

call operators, nurses, paramedics, firefighters, and

sheriffs - all part of what’s needed for a comprehensive

public safety system.

Vote YES on Proposition B. We can achieve minimum

police staffing AND be fiscally responsible.

Supervisor Ahsha Safaí

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Connie Chan

Proponent’s Argument Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP51

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B

The Prop B opponent agrees that we need more police

officers. He wants voters to believe it is simply a matter

of taking $300 million in general fund tax dollars.

Nothing is that simple.

Our City faces an enormous financial crisis over the

next few years. Our opponent's argument ignores

this reality. San Francisco is still recovering from the

economic decline from the pandemic and is facing a

deficit of nearly 1 billion dollars. In fact, Mayor London

Breed just cut 75 million dollars' worth of services that

included food security programs, senior services and

support for children and families in need.

San Francisco's tax base needs alternative funding

solutions and to amend existing tax funds to keep

vital services operative. Any change of tax funding will

require voter approval at a future election, by law.

Our public safety system needs long-term solutions to

achieve full police staffing. Prop B provides that long-

term solution by:

1. creating a mandate for minimum police staffing for

a five-year period

2. mandating that San Francisco voters decide,

at a future election, which tax funds to modify,

repurpose or create to cover the cost of new police

officers and recruitment activities.

Prop B is a transparent and fiscally responsible long-

term solution to achieve minimum police staffing and

ensure our entire public safety system is supported.

That is why the San Francisco Democratic Party is a

supporter of Proposition B.

Supervisor Ahsha Safaí

San Francisco Democratic Party

DON’T BUY THE ‘COP TAX’ LIE!

Proposition B is a confusing mess of political games-

manship that actually prevents San Francisco voters

from mandating a fully staffed police department —

unless and until they pass “a future tax measure” to

“generate sufficient additional revenue” to recruit and

hire more officers.

Originally conceived as a five-year plan to solve

San Francisco’s unprecedented police understaffing

crisis, the Charter Amendment I co-authored with

Mayor London Breed would have promptly funded

expanded police recruiting. And it would have

made needed progress on public safety challenges

robbing too many San Franciscans of the safe enjoy-

ment of their neighborhoods and hamstringing our

economic recovery.

But then, late in the Board of Supervisors’ process, an

aspiring mayoral candidate added a poison pill that

renders the whole plan ineffective. Now, instead of

being a public safety measure, Prop B is just a ploy for

new taxes: “a Cop Tax Scheme.”

Backed by public sector unions that compete with

police for limited dollars — and supported by a slim

majority of supervisors — Prop B would enshrine into

our City Charter an empty promise, devoid of meaning,

until some future election.

Prop B is craven political trickery, which…

• Aims to fool voters into believing its proponents are

solving our police staffing crisis — when they’re in

fact obstructing desperately needed progress.

• Manipulates voters’ legitimate fears about public

safety into political support for higher taxes.

• Sacrifices urgent public safety imperatives that a

fully staffed SFPD could solve for the near-term

political advantage of competing unions and aspir-

ing politicians.

San Francisco is a $14.6 billion enterprise. We can

afford a fully staffed police department. A fully staffed

SFPD should be a baseline expectation for the taxes

you already pay — not a fee-for-service add-on.

VOTE NO ON PROP B.

Learn more at StopTheCopTax.com.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Opponent's Argument Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument

38-EN-M24-CP52

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B – Paid Arguments

Paid Arguments in Favor

San Francisco residents deserve to live in a safe city.

We need more police officers and more public safety

personnel to prevent crime and respond to emergen-

cies. Prop B is a responsible ballot measure that not

only sets minimum staffing for our Police Department

but requires City leaders to show how they will pay

for additional recruitment costs. With the city facing

historic deficits, this is absolutely necessary so we can

fulfill the promise of new officers with actual results. I

urge you to join me in voting Yes on Prop B.

Assemblymember Matt Haney

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public

Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

San Francisco Democratic Party Supports

Proposition B

A comprehensive community safety strategy is

essential to the success of our families. Prop B will

ensure we have the police needed to patrol our streets

while allowing us to make much needed investments

in prevention, deterrence and emergency response.

It is fiscally responsible and gives voters a voice. The

San Francisco Democratic Party urges voters to say

YES to Prop B.

San Francisco Democratic Party

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public

Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

Key San Francisco public safety agencies are facing a

staffing crisis.

Prop B will allow us to address a severe police

shortage by requiring City leaders to fully and

transparently adopt new recruitment efforts while

continuing to work to recruit the 911 dispatchers,

nurses, emergency responders and other staff

critical for lasting safety. Please join us and vote

YES on Prop B.

Service Employees International Union Local 1021

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public

Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

Our families deserve to live and work in safe neigh-

borhoods. Police staffing shortages make it difficult

for officers to effectively patrol our entire city, leading

to rising crime. Prop B addresses these shortages

without causing cuts to other critical city programs

that promote public safety. Join San Francisco city

workers who are saying Yes to Prop B!

IFPTE Local 21 is a union of healthcare professionals,

criminal forensic investigators, street inspectors,

and other employees of the City and County of

San Francisco.

IFPTE Local 21

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public

Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

I work with the most vulnerable residents of

San Francisco and I support Prop B. Fully staffing our

police department will help keep neighborhoods safe

for those most at risk. And transparently funding all

public safety services ensures my patients can still get

the mental health counseling, health care and housing

support they need. We can do both responsibly by

voting Yes on Prop B.

Heather Bollinger, Registered Nurse

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public

Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

As 911 dispatchers, we’re often the first call when

a crime occurs. We know we need more police to

respond to emergencies. And we need more dispatch-

ers, EMTs, mental health experts and nurses. Instead

of pitting safety personnel against each other, Prop B

allows us to fill vacancies throughout safety agencies,

so you know when you call 911, you’ll get a quick

answer AND a prompt response.

Natalie Elicetche, 911 Dispatcher

38-EN-M24-CP53

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B – Paid Arguments

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public

Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

Our workers help build San Francisco. On job sites,

safety comes first. But in San Francisco, safety is

falling behind. Prop B will make our streets safer by

creating a dedicated fund to fully staff our police

department - without cutting programs designed to

prevent and deter crime. We believe in safe staffing

and a strong public safety infrastructure.

Don’t take a shortcut on safety - vote YES on Prop B.

San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council

Teamsters Local 665

International Union of Elevator Constructors Local 8

Ironworkers Local 377

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public

Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

San Franciscans deserve honesty when it comes to

our budget. Elected leaders should be expected to

honestly and transparently explain how they will pay

for proposed programs. Under Prop B, that’s exactly

what they will have to do. We deserve fiscal responsi-

bility and increased staffing - vote Yes on B.

Former Assessor-Recorder, Mabel Teng

Former SFMTA Board of Director, Sharon Lai

Mike Casey, President of San Francisco Labor Council*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public

Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

The safety of our Chinese community has been

compromised. Prop B will require San Francisco to

acquire the funding to hire more police officers, as we

need more officers who are people of color, bilingual

and culturally competent. Other proposals just take

away from other city emergency services and are

empty promises. Join us and vote yes on Prop. B.

Former Assessor Recorder Mabel Teng

Chinatown Merchants United Association of

San Francisco

Chinatown History & Culture Association

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public

Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

Paid Arguments Against

We’re fed up, and we’ve had enough!

NO ON PROPOSITION B

Public safety is not some frivolous amenity or

unnecessary luxury. It is a core governmental respon-

sibility. Prop B not only eschews this responsibility,

it continues the damage done by Supervisors like

Connie Chan who have worked diligently to defund

and dismantle police services in San Francisco, with

predictable and even tragic results.

Prop B claims it will achieve minimum police staffing

levels, but that will only happen if voters approve

some UNKNOWN future tax in some UNKNOWN

future election. The stakes are too high to pin our

future to UNKNOWNS.

In the Richmond District, countless residents have

reported being victims of crime under Supervisor

Connie Chan’s watch.

I live one block away from Richmond Market, where

our beloved shopkeeper was tragically killed in August

2023 by someone stealing two beers. Richmond

Market is where my kids learned how to engage

independently - it was the first place I allowed them to

walk on their own at night to buy snacks. Our neigh-

borhood market should be a safe place for all of us.

Unfortunately, extremists on the Board of Supervisors

have chosen to deprioritize public safety, leading to

tragic events like this and leaving many residents

feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods.

Prop B will do nothing to address the police staffing

shortage that we pay the price for every single day.

Enough is enough.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B.

38-EN-M24-CP54

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B – Paid Arguments

Marjan Philhour

Small Business and Community Advocate

Candidate for DCCC and Richmond District Supervisor

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Marjan Philhour.

No on B

Defunding the police was one of the most destruc-

tive policy decisions of the last 4 years. The Mayor

and the Board of Supervisors put criminals ahead of

public safety. Now they’re doing it again, with Prop

B’s proposal to require the future passage of a Future

Special Cop Tax — in order to return police staffing to

necessary levels. San Francisco’s $14 billion budget

has more than enough to fund public safety. A fully

staffed Police Department is essential.

San Francisco Republican Party

John Dennis, Chairman, Board Member CAGOP

Thomas Sleckman, Secretary, Election Integrity Officer

Joseph Bleckman, Vice-Chair Special Events

Lisa Remmer, Vice-Chair Political Affairs

Yvette Corkrean, Vice-Chair Volunteer Activities,

Endorsed Candidate for CA Senate 11

Howard Epstein, Vice-Chair Communications

Rodney Leong, Vice-Chair Digital Communications

Jacob Spangler, Executive Director

Stephanie Jeong

Bruce Lou, SFGOP & CAGOP endorsed Candidate for

U.S. Congressional 11

Jason Clark, Board Member CAGOP

SFGOP.org

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

San Francisco Republican Party.

Breaking down Proposition B, the “Cop Tax,” for

Common Sense San Franciscans.

Vote NO on this misleading and purposefully destruc-

tive proposition.

There is no higher Governmental priority than public

safety and this cynical Proposition B “Cop Tax” is

nothing but a public safety roadblock. SFPD short

staffing has resulted in reduced response times,

more crime and growing SFPD overtime costs at

a time when crime and open drug markets are

ravaging our city.

Originally proposed by Supervisor Dorsey, this

ballot measure was a straightforward immediate

police staffing increase using reallocated existing

funds. But, Supervisor Safai advanced a proposed

amendment, over Supervisor Dorsey’s objections,

making the increase of police staffing contingent upon

passage of an unidentified “new or modified future

tax.” This single move by Safai will delay significantly

increasing SFPD staffing for at least 18 months, has

killed Supervisor Dorsey’s proposal to use existing

General Fund money to immediately increase SFPD

staffing and has threatened public safety. This new

gutted proposal is called Prop B and it is the excuse

some Supervisors will use to increase our taxes.

Prop B which is, in reality, a “cop tax” hopes you’ll

believe that San Francisco lacks the necessary funds

to provide the most basic public safety need of our

City: adequate police staffing. This is simply not true.

Don’t be fooled into thinking this altered proposition

is aimed at increasing staffing. This bill jeopardizes

the entire police staffing objective, perpetuating the

cycle that keeps our streets and businesses unsafe.

It creates another fiscally irresponsible government

slush fund leaving our public safety in an uncertain,

dangerous and irresponsible limbo.

Vote NO on Prop B.

SOAR

D2Unite

Iconic D3

Sunset United Neighbors

Hi5D5

Sensible D7

Activ8SF

Advocates 11

STOP CRIME ACTION

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

No on B, Stop the Cop Tax.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Garry Tan, 2. Matt Dorsey for DCCC Member 2024, 3. Matt Dorsey.

VOTE NO ON PROP B

A fully staffed police force should be a baseline

obligation of local government. But if Proposition B

passes, a fully staffed SFPD would be out of reach

— until and unless voters approve a future ballot

measure for additional taxes.

Prop B is political gamesmanship that manipulates

voter concerns about safety into supporting additional

taxes. Prop B will not improve public safety, unless

38-EN-M24-CP55

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B – Paid Arguments

voters pass a future tax for additional revenue to

recruit and hire more officers.

Small businesses, including restaurants, in

San Francisco need a fully staffed SFPD to make

progress on our public safety challenges, throughout

the city. Please join us in opposing Prop B.

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

Building Owners and Managers Association of

San Francisco

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

No on B, Stop the Cop Tax.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Garry Tan, 2. Matt Dorsey for DCCC Member 2024, 3. Matt Dorsey.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

YES

38-EN-M24-CP56

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C

This measure requires 50%+1 afrmative votes to pass.

Shall the City exempt from the real estate transfer tax the first time

a property is transferred after being converted from a commercial

to residential use, have authority to amend the transfer tax without

voter approval but not to increase it, and increase the annual limit

on office space available for development by including office space

that has been converted to a different use or demolished?

C – Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption and Oce

Space Allocation

Digest by the Ballot Simpliﬁcation Committee

The Way It Is Now: The City collects a real estate

transfer tax on most property sales and some leases

in San Francisco. The tax rate usually depends on the

total sale (or lease) price and ranges from 0.5% to 6%.

The money collected from this tax goes into the City’s

General Fund and may be spent for any purpose.

Any transfers of rent-restricted affordable housing of

$5 million or more may be partially exempt from the

tax by the Board of Supervisors (Board). Voters must

approve any other changes to the tax.

Voters have limited the amount of new office space

the City allows each year. The limit does not change

when an office space is converted to a different use

or demolished.

The Proposal: Under Proposition C, the first time a

property is transferred after being converted from

commercial to residential use, it would be exempt

from the transfer tax as long as the property owner

receives permission to convert the property before

January 1, 2030. The exemption would be available for

up to 5 million square feet of converted properties.

Proposition C would authorize the Board to amend,

reduce, suspend or repeal the transfer tax without

voter approval. Voters must approve any increase

of this tax.

Proposition C would allow the City to increase the

amount of office space available for development

by including property that has been converted

or demolished.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to:

• Exempt from the transfer tax the first time a property

is transferred after being converted from commercial

to residential use.

• Authorize the Board to amend the transfer tax with-

out voter approval, but not to increase it.

• Allow the City to increase the amount of office space

available for development by including property that

has been converted or demolished.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want

to make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "C"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following

statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition C:

Should the proposed initiative ordinance be approved

by the voters, in my opinion, it would significantly

decrease the City’s transfer taxes revenues. Revenue

losses from the proposed initiative ordinance would be

dependent on the number of properties converted then

transferred and the transferred properties’ transfer tax

rates but could range from $34 million to $150 million

if 5 million square feet of converted properties are

transferred over the 30-year period. However, the reve-

nue impact to the City will likely be further affected,

depending on future decisions by office lessees and

property investors, as described below.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

38-EN-M24-CP57

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C

The proposed initiative ordinance would amend

the Business and Tax Regulations Code, waiving the

current real property transfer tax rate of up to 6%

for first time transfers on non-residential properties

converted to residential use. The tax exemption will

apply to the first 5 million square feet of converted

property that applies for a qualifying certificate from

the Planning Department. Additionally, the ordinance

would reduce square footage requirements on

office developments where a former office space

was demolished.

Over the 30-year period, if the 5 million square foot

cap is reached, revenue loses could range from

approximately $34 million if only condominiums

were transferred at the .68% transfer tax rate, to

approximately $150 million if only apartments were

transferred at the 6% rate. For context, in Fiscal Year

(FY) 2022–2023, revenue from the real property trans-

fer tax was $186.2 million. It is important to note that

property transfer tax revenue is the City’s most volatile

revenue source.

Additionally, the City’s revenue loss may be subse-

quently increased, or diminished, depending on the

property acquired, and the behavior of investors. These

impacts may be complex, because office and residen-

tial properties pay property tax to the City, while many

office tenants pay the gross receipts tax and other

business taxes to the City.

• If the Transfer Tax exemption makes residential

conversion of a permanently-vacant office building

financially feasible, the City would lose transfer tax,

because of the exemption, but would likely gain a

greater amount of property tax, because the new

residential property has a higher value than the

vacant office building.

• If the transfer tax exemption makes residential

conversion of an office building financially feasible,

but that building would have been eventually

occupied by future office tenants, the exemption

would most likely lead to a net negative revenue

impact for the City. The City would lose transfer tax

because of the exemption, gain property tax from

the new residential investment in the property, but

would forego business taxes from future tenants of

the office building. In this scenario, the business tax

loss would likely exceed the property tax gain, given

the comparative rates of the two taxes. The City

could additionally face foregone property taxes from

potential office investors, who are not eligible for

the exemption.

The proposed initiative ordinance would also authorize

the Board of Supervisors to amend or repeal any

aspect of the real property transfer tax, including

adding additional exemptions, without voter approval

to the extent that it’s permitted by the California

constitution.

How "C" Got on the Ballot

On November 20, 2023, the Department of

Elections received a proposed ordinance signed by

Mayor Breed.

The Municipal Elections Code allows the Mayor to

place an ordinance on the ballot in this manner.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP58

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C

STOP THE GIVEAWAY. VOTE NO ON C

The proponent of Prop C says that immensely wealthy

owners of downtown office buildings worth $25

million or more should get a tax break when they sell

their building.

If you oppose giving tax breaks to billionaires,

vote NO on C!

Here's what they're NOT telling you:

• A billionaire tax break for LUXURY HOUSING.

Current law already allows tax exemptions for office

conversions for AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Prop C is

for huge developers to get a tax break for building

LUXURY HOUSING.

• A billionaire tax break you're paying for. When the

wealthy don't pay their fair share, it's middle-class

and low-income San Franciscans who must make up

the difference.

• A billionaire tax break that steals from affordable

housing. The tax on mega-office buildings funds

affordable housing and rental assistance. Why

should struggling renters pay more so billionaires

can profit more?

• A billionaire tax break that allows City Hall to pass

more giveaways without voter approval. Hidden

in the fine print, Prop C allows City Hall to roll back

progressive transfer taxes on expensive buildings

that were PASSED BY VOTERS. The proponent

doesn't even mention this. Wonder why?

Real economic recovery must focus on small businesses,

neighborhoods and working families. Not just big

corporations and downtown.

Protect affordable housing funds, progressive tax

reforms and keeping voters, not City Hall, in charge.

Vote NO on C!

Council of Community Housing Organizations

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

Affordable Housing Alliance

San Francisco Tenants Union

Senior and Disability Action

Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

Small Business Forward

VOTE YES ON PROP C FOR MORE HOMES AND A

VIBRANT DOWNTOWN

By removing barriers to converting office space to

housing, Prop C will take vacant space, turn it into

homes, and bring more people Downtown.

Prop C waives the City’s transfer tax on projects that

convert buildings from non-residential to residential

uses, incentivizing underused office buildings to be

converted into housing.

San Francisco’s Downtown is undergoing a period of

change – and there is a tremendous opportunity to

attract investment and excitement in the future of what

Downtown can be: a thriving, 24-hour neighborhood

filled with residents, workers, arts and culture, and

successful small businesses.

The increased repurposing of office buildings into

housing will help San Francisco meet its state

mandated requirement to build thousands of new units

of housing, reduce the vacancy rate downtown, and

bring new investment Downtown, increasing opportu-

nities to create a dynamic neighborhood where people

can live, learn, work, and play.

Here’s how Prop C works:

• The City’s current Transfer Tax – which is up to a 6%

tax rate on transactions over $25 million – would be

waived after a qualifying non-residential to residen-

tial conversion.

• The tax waiver would be limited to five million

square feet of space converted, and requires

that planning approval be complete by

December 31, 2029.

• Projects would need construction approval within

three years of planning approval, to ensure conver-

sions are moving forward.

Downtown revitalization is beginning to take off

and Prop C is a critical next step in our multi-pronged

effort.

Vote YES on Prop C.

Mayor London Breed

Proponent’s Argument Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP59

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C

Prop C’s opponents want to stick with the status quo –

empty office buildings downtown, less revenue for city

services like parks and police, and small businesses

struggling to stay open.

Prop C is a step we can take now to revitalize

our downtown by turning empty office buildings

into housing.

The pandemic and work from home shift was a cata-

strophic event that hollowed out our downtown. Now,

formerly packed offices sit empty, streets are quiet, and

restaurants continue to close due to lack of foot traffic.

There are property owners interested in converting

our empty office buildings into housing, but the cost

to do so is extremely high. Things like plumbing

need to be entirely changed when you convert office

space into homes.

Here’s what Prop C ACTUALLY does: It temporarily

waives the City’s transfer tax to make it more afford-

able to convert office buildings into housing. This

new housing will bring investment and residents into

downtown, creating a sustainable, 24-hour neigh-

borhood that is more lively and resilient to future

economic downturns.

San Francisco needs more housing. It doesn’t need

empty office buildings that may sit vacant for decades

if we do nothing.

After auto worker jobs went elsewhere, Detroit

rebuilt its downtown by repurposing commercial

buildings into housing. After 9/11, New York City

rebuilt lower Manhattan and added housing, creating

a new urban community.

We can rebuild our downtown and create a thriving

new neighborhood.

Vote Yes on Prop C.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

NO ON C: A DECEPTIVE TAX BREAK FOR BILLIONAIRES

San Francisco voters, don’t be fooled. Vote NO on C

to stop a deceptive ballot measure that takes power

away from voters and allows City Hall politicians to

hand out corporate tax breaks to billionaires and huge

property owners.

Watch out for Prop C:

• A deceptive tax break for billionaires. City law

already exempts affordable housing projects from

the transfer tax. Despite its claims, Prop C does

NOTHING to encourage affordable housing in

San Francisco.

• Allows politicians to hand out tax breaks to big

corporations. Today, only voters can decide whether

to increase or decrease the transfer tax on property

sales. But this measure would allow politicians to

reduce or even eliminate the transfer tax without

voter approval.

• Lets City Hall overturn the will of voters. Since 2008,

voters have approved ballot measures to close trans-

fer tax loopholes that allowed corporations to avoid

paying their fair share. And, we have voted for small

tax increases for properties valued over $5 million

and $10 million. These were OUR CHOICE. But if Prop

C passes, it will be the politicians’ choice instead.

• Threatens affordable housing and vital services. The

transfer tax on massive corporate property sales

over $5 million provides hundreds of units of afford-

able housing and helps fund vital services like public

safety, schools, and affordable housing. Prop C could

take those services away.

• The wrong kind of economic recovery. Our economic

recovery should focus on city neighborhoods, small

businesses, and working San Franciscans – not

downtown corporations.

Prop C is a politician’s magic trick that benefits a select

few at the expense of the rest of us. Please join us and

vote NO on C.

Council of Community Housing Organizations

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

Affordable Housing Alliance

San Francisco Tenants Union

Senior and Disability Action

Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

Small Business Forward

Opponent's Argument Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument

38-EN-M24-CP60

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C – Paid Arguments

Paid Arguments in Favor

Vote Yes on Prop C for more housing for residents,

workers, and families

San Francisco needs more housing for our residents,

workers, and families. Prop C will help create more

homes by converting empty office space into housing.

Creating more housing in our Downtown is a golden

opportunity for San Francisco. While we also need

housing across our entire city, housing in our

Downtown is close to transit, near where people work,

and close to restaurants and businesses that we all

want to see thrive. That support requires Downtown

to be a 24/7 neighborhood, not a 9-to-5 neighborhood.

Prop C will address two problems at once – our vacant

office space that is hurting Downtown and our lack

of housing that is hurting our entire city. It will make

our Downtown more vibrant, and it will make our city

more affordable.

San Francisco’s need for housing is vast, and we need

all solutions on the table. Prop C removes a major

barrier to creating more housing and is a critical tool

to bringing more housing to our City.

Housing Action Coalition

Grow the Richmond

GrowSF

SF YIMBY

SPUR

YIMBY Action

Urban Environmentalists

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for More Housing & Revitalized Downtown

San Francisco.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Emerald

Fund Inc.

Small Businesses Want Prop C!

Downtown small businesses are struggling. Our

restaurants need more customers and our stores

need more people coming in to run errands. To have

a thriving Downtown small business community,

San Francisco must transform from a 9 to 5

Downtown to a 24/7 Downtown. This requires more

residents living in and around Downtown.

Prop C will turn empty office space into housing,

bringing more people and energy to our Downtown

streets. It will bring more people in to support our

small businesses on evenings and weekends.

Prop C will help small businesses by creating a more

stable base of customers eating in our restaurants and

supporting our stores. Prop C will make Downtown a

more resilient and dynamic area.

Prop C also helps create housing, which small

businesses support to bring more customers but

also because our workforce cannot afford to live

in this City.

Prop C is good for small businesses and for

our workers.

Sharky Laguana, Former Small Business

Commission President

Ben Bleiman, SF Bar Owners Alliance

Eva Lee, Chair, Chinatown Merchants Association*

Building Owners and Managers Association of

San Francisco

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

San Francisco Council of District Merchants

Associations

Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for More Housing & Revitalized Downtown

San Francisco.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Emerald

Fund Inc.

STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS

SUPPORT PROP C

San Francisco is an international destination that

is known around the world for its beautiful vistas,

landmarks, and culture. More recently, our downtown

has been in the news because of the devastation

it has endured from the pandemic and the shift to

employees working from home.

We cannot let our downtown become a ghost town.

We cannot accept empty streets, storefronts, and

buildings as the norm. This city has been built and

rebuilt over and over again throughout its history —

and we can do it again by passing Prop C.

Prop C will spur a new boom in our city’s downtown

by allowing a temporary waiver of the transfer tax

38-EN-M24-CP61

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C – Paid Arguments

to help jumpstart the conversion of vacant office

buildings into much-needed housing. Any loss

in the transfer tax will be more than offset by the

investment that will flow into downtown in the form

of new housing, new businesses, new residents, and

new nightlife.

Rebuilding our downtown requires thinking big. Prop

C is the next step on our city’s road to recovery.

For the future of our downtown and San Francisco,

please vote YES on Prop C.

Assessor Joaquín Torres

California State Treasurer Fiona Ma

Senator Scott Wiener

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for More Housing & Revitalized Downtown

San Francisco.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Emerald

Fund Inc.

Help Chinatown’s Economic Recovery —

Support Prop C!

Since the pandemic, San Francisco’s downtown has

suffered. Shops and cafés have closed, offices are

empty, and there are far fewer visitors to the area.

That lack of activity hurts Chinatown, where many

merchants and restaurants continue to feel pain from

the loss of workers and business.

Our Chinatown small businesses are very concerned

and worried that this is the new normal.

We can’t let that happen.

We have to bring people back to the area. We need a

plan that tries something new and different. That’s

why we’re supporting Prop C.

Prop C will temporarily waive the transfer tax for

companies that turn our empty downtown buildings

into housing. That will create more homes, and put

our high-rises to use in new ways.

We can reduce the number of vacant buildings and

create more places for people to live.

It’s time to re-envision our downtown and identify

new and efficient ways to use the buildings and infra-

structure we have.

For our Chinatown merchants and for a better city,

Vote Yes on C.

Vanita Louie, AAPI Leader

Cyn Wang, Entertainment Commissioner*

Sharon Lai, Former San Francisco Municipal Transit

Agency Director

Mike Chen, DCCC Candidate

Lily Ho, DCCC Candidate

Marjan Philhour, DCCC Candidate

Brian Quan, DCCC Candidate

Eva Lee, Chair, Chinatown Merchants Association*

Steven Lee, AAPI Leader

Forrest Liu, Stop Asian Hate Activist

San Francisco Filipino American Democratic Club

Stand with Asian Americans

Stand with Asians

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for More Housing & Revitalized Downtown

San Francisco.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Emerald

Fund Inc.

Prop C will help build the housing San Francisco needs.

By converting available office space to residential

housing, Prop C will give more people an opportunity

to live closer to downtown and bring more housing

near where people work.

Prop C will create a more sustainable neighborhood

that connects all parts of San Francisco, where people

can live, work, and enjoy nightlife, all in one area.

Downtown San Francisco needs to be reimagined as a

neighborhood for all, not just a place of employment

for some. The area already has access to local and

regional transit. By bringing more housing downtown,

we can provide people with the opportunity to walk,

bike, and easily take transit to work, instead of having

to drive long commutes.

By taking advantage of empty office space to create

new housing, Prop C will create a stronger, and

healthier downtown neighborhood, and a more

sustainable and inclusive city for all.

38-EN-M24-CP62

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C – Paid Arguments

Mayor London Breed

Pastor Amos Brown

Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt

Dr. James McCray Jr., Executive Director,

Tabernacle CDC

David Miles Jr., Founder, Church of 8 Wheels

Meaghan Mitchell

Bayard Rustin Coalition

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for More Housing & Revitalized Downtown

San Francisco.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Emerald

Fund Inc.

LGBTQ COMMUNITY LEADERS SUPPORT PROP C

The cost of housing in San Francisco is still too high.

Something needs to be done to make owning and

renting a home more affordable.

That’s where Prop C comes into play.

Prop C is a new way to tackle our housing crisis,

while also reducing all the empty downtown

buildings leftover from the pandemic.

Prop C uses a new approach that temporarily waives

the City’s transfer tax to make it more cost-effective

to turn our empty office buildings into homes. It’s

literally a win-win: instead of starting from scratch,

we can create new housing, breathe life into vacant

buildings, and remake our downtown.

Let’s not go backwards. Let’s rebuild our downtown

to make it more vibrant and immune to the next

downturn. Let’s get creative and turn older,

commercial buildings into classy, new homes. Other

cities like New York are already adopting similar

strategies. Let’s do the same, so the naysayers that

predicted our city’s demise are proven wrong.

Vote Yes on C and stand with those that want to

see a more affordable San Francisco and a more

innovative downtown.

Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club

Senator Scott Wiener

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Cyn Wang, Entertainment Commissioner*

Mike Chen, DCCC Candidate

Luis Zamora, DCCC Candidate

Bayard Rustin Coalition

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for More Housing & Revitalized Downtown

San Francisco.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Emerald

Fund Inc.

San Francisco Democrats for Change Endorse Prop C

Everyone can agree that public safety, homeless-

ness, and the cost of housing are the main issues

concerning all San Franciscans. What if we told you

there’s a way to help address all three of those issues?

Well, there is, and it’s called Prop C.

Prop C reduces the transfer tax so buildings

currently sitting empty can be turned into housing.

Repurposing our empty buildings will mean more

housing and less vacant storefronts. It will mean less

unattended public spaces that can lead to graffiti,

crime, homelessness, and drug dealing.

Prop C will help transform our downtown from being

reliant on traditional 9-5 businesses.

By placing more people in homes downtown, Prop C

will create a new 24-hour downtown neighborhood,

with diverse nightlife, activity, businesses, and people

- all next to easily accessible public transportation.

The pandemic and shift to working from home has

dramatically changed the way many people work and

live. It’s time to build a downtown that is sustainable

and able to weather future economic downturns.

Vote Yes on Prop C to put downtown San Francisco

on the path to recovery!

Assembly District 19

Marjan Philhour

Michela Alioto-Pier

Sara Barz

Mike Chen

Lanier Coles

Parag Gupta

Brian Quan

Catherine Stefani

Jade Tu

Assembly District 17

Cedric Akbar

Carrie Elise Barnes

38-EN-M24-CP63

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C – Paid Arguments

Trevor Chandler

Matt Dorsey

Emma Heiken

Lily Ho

Michael Lai

Laurence Lem Lee

Peter Lee

Joe Sangirardi

Nancy Tung

Luis Zamora

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for More Housing & Revitalized Downtown San Francisco.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Emerald

Fund Inc.

Prop C Will Help Create a Thriving Downtown

Big cities like San Francisco need a thriving

downtown. The pandemic and shift to working from

home has gutted our downtown.

The current situation is unsustainable. We can’t let

San Francisco become a failed city.

We need an all-hands approach that encourages

investment and a new model for our downtown.

Prop C is a major part of the strategy.

Prop C will waive the transfer tax on projects that

convert commercial buildings into homes that people

can live in.

Prop C will reduce office vacancies, help with the

city’s housing shortage, and create a more sustain-

able, lively neighborhood.

After the auto companies outsourced manufacturing

jobs, Detroit was able to come back from the brink.

After 9-11, lower Manhattan was reimagined and

rebuilt. San Francisco can do the same.

On March 5, Vote Yes on C.

TogetherSF Action

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for More Housing & Revitalized Downtown San Francisco.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Emerald

Fund Inc.

San Francisco Families Support Prop C

As parents choosing to raise our families in

San Francisco, we strongly urge you to support Prop

C this March. Prop C will temporarily waive the city’s

transfer tax to make it easier to convert downtown

office buildings into housing.

Creating more housing at all levels is vitally important

to make our city more affordable for families, renters,

and lower-income individuals.

It does not make sense to have a bunch of empty

office buildings downtown. Prop C is a creative

way to make the cost of office conversions more

enticing to the companies interested in turning the

properties into homes.

Infusing downtown with more families and young

people who are committed to raising their kids in an

urban environment will create a new, more sustain-

able downtown. That will bring life to our city, after

we have endured so much the last few years.

For those concerned about reducing the City’s influx

of taxes, there is a built-in provision that ends the

transfer tax after a few years.

Please support this temporary measure to rebuild our

downtown and make housing more affordable for all.

Please support Prop C to turn empty office buildings

into new downtown housing.

Westside Family Democratic Club

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on

C, Coalition for More Housing & Revitalized Downtown San Francisco.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Emerald

Fund Inc.

38-EN-M24-CP64

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C – Paid Arguments

Paid Arguments Against

Threatens Affordable Housing

Join San Francisco’s tenant advocacy and affordable

housing organizations and vote NO on C.

Don’t be fooled. City law already gives tax breaks to

developers willing to build affordable housing for

our city. Proposition C just gives those tax breaks to

billionaire luxury developers who will build more units

no one can afford in our already empty downtown.

Every year, San Francisco exceeds its goals of creating

market-rate, luxury housing, but falls short for homes

that working people can afford. Proposition C does

nothing to change that-- it is a luxury developer

giveaway that ONLY helps build those luxury homes.

Stop the corporate giveaway -- Vote NO on C.

Affordable Housing Alliance

Council of Community Housing Organizations

Community Tenants Association

Eviction Defense Collaborative

Tenants and Owners Development Development

Corporation (TODCO)

Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA)

San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Stop the Giveaway, NO on C.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Affordable Housing Alliance Political Action Committee, 2. Council

of Community Housing Organizations, 3. Small Business Forward.

San Francisco’s Democratic leaders ask you to

vote NO on C

For the past 15 years, San Francisco Democrats have

supported progressive tax reform that increased

transfer taxes on the most wealthy corporations and

individuals — those who are selling property valued at

$5 million or more.

These progressive tax reforms have resulted in

hundreds of millions of dollars for affordable housing,

rent assistance and other vital programs. Now they

are under attack by Prop C.

Prop C takes the power to reduce transfer taxes away

from voters and puts it in the hands of City Hall politi-

cians, many of whom are supported by the billionaires

and real estate corporations who opposed the transfer

tax in the first place. If Prop C passes, it could mean

a tax giveaway for the wealthiest, and a reduction

in vital funding for programs working families

depend upon.

Please join us as we need to stand together against

the greed of billionaires and vote NO on Proposition C.

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair Li

Miao Lovett

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair

Peter Gallotta

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair

Leah LaCroix

San Francisco Democratic Party Corresponding

Secretary Anabel Ibáñez

DCCC Member Gloria Berry

Former Supervisor Gordon Mar

Former Supervisor John Avalos

Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council

Richmond District Democratic Club

Alida Fisher, Commissioner, San Francisco Board

of Education

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Stop the Giveaway, NO on C.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Affordable Housing Alliance Political Action Committee, 2. Council

of Community Housing Organizations, 3. Small Business Forward.

Let small businesses recover—giant corporations

don’t need huge tax breaks. Vote NO on C.

The Real Estate Transfer Tax, approved by voters in

November 2020, has provided San Francisco with

more than $400 million year over year in additional

revenue to help fund badly needed affordable

housing. It has been a wild success.

Prop C, which would overturn this tax, is nothing

more than an enormous tax break to those who need

it the least — billionaires, downtown corporations

and big real estate investors. The proposition will risk

losing a huge source of funding for affordable housing

by taking the power away from the voters and putting

it in the hands of a simple majority of the Board of

Supervisors.

Small businesses are struggling post-pandemic as

sales have not returned to what they were pre-2020.

Due to inflation, small businesses have seen an

increase in cost of goods and services, all while

commercial rent and payroll expenses remain high.

38-EN-M24-CP65

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C – Paid Arguments

We support programs that improve the economic

health of the community and believe that businesses

profiting the most from the current conditions should

be the ones investing the most to make our city a

better place to live— leaving behind a legacy that

allows others to economically prosper as well.

Join small business owners and vote NO on

Proposition C.

Small Business Forward

Alembic

Bar Part Time

Bisou Bisou Wines

Body Philosophy Club

Booksmith

Day Moon

Gravel & Gold

Happy House

No Shop

Mercury Cafe

Sour Cherry Comics

Yo También LLC

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Stop the Giveaway, NO on C.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Affordable Housing Alliance Political Action Committee, 2. Council

of Community Housing Organizations, 3. Small Business Forward.

Stand up for all of our communities - vote NO on C

San Francisco’s Black community has been hit hard

by our affordable housing crisis. While only 4% of the

population of San Francisco, African Americans make

up 37% of our homeless population.

As African American leaders, we oppose Prop C

because it will not deliver housing to communities like

ours who need help the most.

Instead, Prop C giveaways tax breaks to large corpora-

tions to encourage them to change commercial office

space to MARKET RATE, LUXURY HOUSING. This

hurts two ways — first, it encourages developers to

build more luxury housing rather than homes working

families can afford. Second, it reduces funding that

is currently dedicated to real affordable housing and

rental assistance that prevents more homelessness.

We need real solutions, not tax breaks for the wealthy.

Vote NO on C.

Supervisor Shamann Walton

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair

Leah LaCroix

DCCC Member Gloria Berry

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Stop the Giveaway, NO on C.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Affordable Housing Alliance Political Action Committee, 2. Council

of Community Housing Organizations, 3. Small Business Forward.

Prop C is the wrong solution.

San Francisco’s Asian & Pacific Islander communities

face tough housing challenges. Our low-income senior

renters are sometimes forced to choose between

food and rent. Housing, especially in Chinatown, is

extremely overcrowded. And fewer and fewer families

can afford to purchase a home or rent an apartment

large enough for a family.

Prop C promises to address these problems, but

it’s the wrong solution. Instead of encouraging

affordable housing, it focuses on luxury housing we

can’t afford. And it gives our hard-earned tax dollars

to immensely wealthy developers and corporations

— while reducing funding for affordable housing

and other vital public services like community and

pedestrian safety.

We are united in our opposition to this measure.

Please join us and vote NO on Proposition C.

Former Supervisor Gordon Mar

Former Supervisor Jane Kim

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair

Li Miao Lovett

Tenderloin Chinese Rights Association

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Stop the Giveaway, NO on C.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Affordable Housing Alliance Political Action Committee, 2. Council

of Community Housing Organizations, 3. Small Business Forward.

Prop C is a false solution, vote NO

In San Francisco, Latino renters must spend an

average of 75% of their income just to pay rent.

Homelessness in the Latino community skyrocketed

by 55% during the pandemic. Our housing challenge is

urgent, and getting worse.

We are united against Prop C because it is a FALSE

SOLUTION to our problems of housing and economic

recovery. At the end of the day, the only housing that

38-EN-M24-CP66

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C – Paid Arguments

will be built by Prop C is downtown luxury housing

that is far out of reach for working families. And it will

be built at the expense of affordable housing programs

that, while not enough, are making a difference.

We are united in our opposition to Prop C, the wrong

direction for San Francisco.

Latino Task Force

Former Supervisor John Avalos

San Francisco Democratic Party Corresponding

Secretary Anabel Ibáñez

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Stop the Giveaway, NO on C.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Affordable Housing Alliance Political Action Committee, 2. Council

of Community Housing Organizations, 3. Small Business Forward.

Prop C hurts the LGBTQ+ community

Prop C will allow extremely wealthy developers, real

estate investors and huge corporations to escape

paying their fair share of taxes that fund vital services

for our community.

In return, it makes no requirements that they build

affordable housing — not a single unit! Instead, they

stand to pocket millions in tax-savings while working

San Franciscans continue to face an unaffordable

housing market.

Prop C will hurt LGBTQ+ community by decreasing

funds that are aimed at providing affordable housing

and rental assistance to both low-income seniors

and LGBTQ+ youth, who continue to suffer some

of the highest rates of homelessness among all

San Francisco youth.

We need critical resources for our most underserved

communities - not another giveaway to the wealthy

few. Join us and vote NO on Proposition C.

Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

Former State Senator Mark Leno

Former Assemblymember Tom Ammiano

BART Director Bevan Dufty

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair

Peter Gallotta

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Stop the Giveaway, NO on C.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Affordable Housing Alliance Political Action Committee, 2. Council

of Community Housing Organizations, 3. Small Business Forward.

Are You Having Difficulty Voting

Because of a Disability?

Call: (888) 569-7955

Disability Rights California

operates a

Voting Hotline:

7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on

March 5, 2024 (Election Day)

We also answer calls prior to and following Election Day.

The Voting Hotline is available year-round.

r goals are to help voters with disabilities have a

uccessful voting experience and identify issues w

can address in the current and future elections.

Disability

Rights

California

California’s protection & advocacy system

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

YES

38-EN-M24-CP68

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition D

Digest by the Ballot Simpliﬁcation Committee

The Way It Is Now: City law generally prohibits City

officers and employees from accepting gifts from

anyone doing business with their department or who

has attempted to influence them in governmental

decisions. City law also prohibits bribing City officers

and employees.

City departments must report any gifts they accept to

the Controller, to the Board of Supervisors (Board) and

on the department’s website.

Each City department sets its own policy prohibiting

its officers and employees from engaging in certain

activities that may conflict with their City duties.

City officers and employees who make governmental

decisions must formally disclose a relationship they

have with a person or entity who is the subject of a

decision or who has a financial interest in the decision.

There is no penalty for City officials who fail to make

the disclosure.

City elected officials, commissioners and department

heads must complete an annual ethics training.

Some City ethics laws were adopted by the Board

and may be amended by majority vote of the Board.

Other City ethics laws were enacted by voters and may

be amended only by voter approval. The City Ethics

This measure requires 50%+1 afrmative votes to pass.

Shall the City amend its ethics laws to further restrict the gifts City

employees and officers may accept, expand the definition of conduct by

City employees, officers and others that those laws prohibit as bribery,

require additional reporting of gifts to City departments, create a uniform

set of rules for nonwork activities of City employees and officers instead

of rules by each department, create additional penalties for some ethics

violations, require ethics training for additional City employees, and change

the requirements for making future amendments to some ethics laws?

D – Changes to Local Ethics Laws

Commission proposes and enforces City laws and

rules governing ethics and campaign finance.

The Proposal: Proposition D would tighten City

ethics laws by:

• Expanding the types and sources of gifts that

City officers and employees are prohibited

from accepting.

• Amending the definition of bribery to prohibit City

officers and employees from soliciting or accepting

anything of value for themselves or a third party

with the goal of influencing any government action.

It would also prohibit anyone from offering a bribe

to City officers and employees, including payments

to third parties.

• Requiring City department heads to report addi-

tional information about gifts to their department

and allowing discipline for failing to meet these

requirements.

• Creating a uniform set of rules for all prohibited

nonwork activities for City officers and employees.

• Allowing for monetary penalties when City officers

and employees fail to make required disclosures

about their personal, professional or business

relationships.

• Requiring all City employees with decision-making

authority to complete an annual ethics training.

• Requiring voter approval or supermajority votes by

both the Board and the City Ethics Commission to

amend most City ethics laws.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

38-EN-M24-CP69

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition D

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to

tighten City ethics laws.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want

to make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "D"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following

statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition D:

Should the proposed initiative ordinance be approved

by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a minimal

impact on the cost of government. The proposed initia-

tive ordinance would cost $43,000 in Fiscal Year (FY)

2023–2024 and approximately $25,000 annually.

The proposed ordinance expands rules and prohibi-

tions on gift-giving, bribery, behested payments, and

conflicts of interest for City staff, elected officials,

departments, and lobbyists. The proposed ordinance

also requires annual ethics trainings for City employ-

ees with decision making authority. If passed, the

proposed ordinance would also require a superma-

jority approval from both the Board of Supervisors

and the Ethics Commission to amend most City

ethics laws.

The proposed ordinance would appropriate $43,000

from the General Reserve in FY23–24 consisting of

$18,000 for software system changes for ethics training

certification and an annual cost of $25,000 for soft-

ware to develop annual training and online forms for

department gift disclosures. The annual appropriation

would be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the

Consumer Price Index.

For context, the Ethics Commission has four training

and outreach staff with a budget of $788,488 in FY

23–24. Current staff would develop and administer the

new training requirements.

The cost of the proposed ordinance, should it be

approved by the voters, is dependent on decisions that

the Mayor and Board of Supervisors make through the

budget process, as an ordinance cannot bind future

Mayors and Boards of Supervisors to provide funding

for this or any other purpose.

How "D" Got on the Ballot

On August 18, 2023, the Ethics Commission voted 4 to

0 to place Proposition D on the ballot.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP70

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition D

Proposition D is a bureaucratic "full employment act"

to justify out-of-control spending and bloated staff

at the "Ethics" Commission—one of over a hundred

commissions, advisory boards, committees, agen-

cies, panels and task forces that infest San Francisco

government.

Mayor London Breed know this. The Mayor's 2023-24

budget proposal cut 32% of "Ethics" budget and 40%

of its staff over two years, which would have brought

San Francisco spending on compliance into line with

Los Angeles. The Board of Supervisors fought back.

Meanwhile, Mayor Breed deflects her responsibility for

public corruption.

Proposition D doubles down with another toothless

rewrite of lobbying rules. Bigger words(!), longer defi-

nitions(!), more paperwork(!).

Vote NO on Proposition D. Bureaucracy won't end

corruption.

In November, let's elect a Mayor who will fire corrupt

City officials.

Larry S. Marso, Esq.

A Nob Hill resident, Mr. Marso is a technology execu-

tive, M&A advisor, attorney, and syndicated columnist.

As a delegate of the San Francisco Republican County

Central Committee, he represents voters in Assembly

District 17. In 2020, Mr. Marso was a candidate for

Chair of the SFGOP, a presidential campaign consul-

tant, and a nationally recognized expert on electronic

voting systems.

Rebuttal delegated by Official Proposition D Opponent

Eve Del Castello, Congressional Candidate, President

of the Republican Forum of San Francisco,

(415) 282-0894.

Larry S. Marso

Proposition D was placed on the ballot by a unani-

mous vote of the San Francisco Ethics Commission

in response to recent incidents involving corruption

on the part of City officials and those doing business

with the City. Proposition D addresses issues identi-

fied through anti-corruption investigations, provides

more consistent rules across City departments, and

promotes government decisions that are, and appear

to be, made on a fair and impartial basis.

Gifts and Bribery: Proposition D would clarify and

expand an existing rule that prohibits City officials

from accepting gifts from people who have attempted

to influence them and those doing business with

their departments. This is accomplished, in part, by

removing certain exceptions and applying the rule in

additional situations. Proposition D would also clarify

and expand the City's anti-bribery rule and require

department heads to disclose gifts given to City

departments.

Ethics Training: Proposition D would require annual

ethics training for all City officials who are required to

disclose their financial interests because they partici-

pate in making governmental decisions.

Incompatible Activities: Proposition D would provide

standardized rules for all City officials prohibiting

outside activities that conflict with their City duties,

including activities that are subject to their depart-

ment's control and the misuse of City resources or

positions for private gain.

Disclosure of Relationships: Proposition D would allow

a City official to be penalized for failing to disclose,

as required by law, any personal, professional, or

business relationships they have with anyone who is

the subject of a government decision being made by

the official.

Safeguarding Ethics Laws: Proposition D would amend

chapters of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct

Code to require future legislative amendments be

approved by supermajorities of both the Ethics

Commission and Board of Supervisors. The power of

voters to amend these chapters would not be affected.

Information on all aspects of Proposition D is available

at: sfethics.org/PropD

San Francisco Ethics Commission

Proponent’s Argument Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP71

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition D

Proposition D was placed on the ballot by the

San Francisco Ethics Commission in response to

multiple recent incidents of corruption by City officials

and those doing business, or seeking to do business,

with the City. The Commission developed Proposition

D to create clear, enforceable rules, that promote a City

government that provides fair, just, and equitable treat-

ment for all.

Currently, each City department has its own docu-

ment, known as a Statement of Incompatible Activities

(SIA), that contains rules for the department's officials

regarding activities that may conflict with their City

duties. Proposition D would standardize these rules

and apply them uniformly to City officials across all

departments. This would mean all City officials, regard-

less of their department, would be subject to, and

could be trained on, the same rules regarding activities

that may conflict with their City duties.

Proposition D does not limit the ability of voters to

amend City ethics laws. Currently, almost all chapters

of the City's Campaign and Governmental Conduct

Code can be amended legislatively, without voter

approval, most by a simple majority of the Board of

Supervisors. Proposition D would require that future

amendments to most chapters be either approved by

1) the voters or 2) super-majorities of both the Ethics

Commission and Boad of Supervisors. All chapters

could still be amended by the voters if Proposition D

is approved.

Information on all aspects of Proposition D is available

at: sfethics.org/PropD

San Francisco Ethics Commission

This proposition does not tighten City ethics laws.

The way it is now - Each City department sets its own

policy prohibiting its officers and employees from

engaging in certain activities that may conflict with

their City duties. This proposal would mean creating a

uniform set of rules for all prohibited nonwork activi-

ties for City officers and employees. This leaves the

rules left out regarding those that may conflict with

their city duties. The way it is now states the rules

more specifically.

Also, The Way it is Now - Some City ethics laws

were adopted by the Board and may be amended

by majority vote of the Board. Other City ethics laws

were enacted by voters and may be amended only by

voter approval. The City Ethics Commission proposes

and enforces City laws and rules governing ethics

and campaign finance. This proposition says noth-

ing regarding campaign finance enforcement and

requires voter approval to amend most City ethics

laws. This loses our voting rights regarding ethics laws

enacted by voters and may be amended only by voter

approval. Vote against this!

Submitted by Eve Del Castello

11th Congressional District Candidate

President of the Republican Forum of S.F.

For information and/or speaking at events,

call (415) 282-0894

Eve Del Castello

Opponent's Argument Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

YES

38-EN-M24-CP72

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E

Digest by the Ballot Simpliﬁcation Committee

The Way It Is Now: The Police Commission (Commission)

oversees and adopts policies for the San Francisco

Police Department (SFPD). The Chief of Police manages

the SFPD’s day-to-day operations. The Board of

Supervisors (Board) may also adopt policies for the

SFPD, by a majority vote.

A policy adopted by the Commission or the Board

outlines and limits how police officers conduct law

enforcement duties.

Under the Commission’s use-of-force policy, officers

must prepare a written report when they use a firearm,

point a firearm at a person, force a resisting suspect

into handcuffs, or use force likely to cause physical

pain or injury. Officers must also record their use of

force using body-worn cameras.

Under the Commission’s vehicle-pursuit policy, an

officer may use a vehicle to pursue a person fleeing

in a vehicle only when the officer suspects the person

committed a violent felony or when the officer believes

the person poses an immediate risk to public safety.

The Board has adopted a policy governing the acquisi-

tion and use of surveillance technology by the SFPD

and other City departments. The City may install

public surveillance cameras on streets, sidewalks and

common areas of public housing upon approval of the

This measure requires 50%+1 afrmative votes to pass.

Shall the City allow the Police Department to hold community

meetings before the Police Commission can change policing policies,

reduce recordkeeping and reporting requirements for police officers,

set new policies for police officers to report use-of-force incidents

and to engage in vehicle pursuits, authorize the Police Department

to use drones and install public surveillance cameras without further

approval, and authorize the Police Department to use new surveillance

technology unless the Board of Supervisors disapproves?

E – Police Department Policies and Procedures

Commission if it finds there is substantial crime occur-

ring at the location.

Before the SFPD can use or acquire a new surveillance

technology, the Board must approve its use. The SFPD

may not use facial recognition technology except in

limited circumstances.

The Proposal: Proposition E is an ordinance that would

make these changes:

• Before the Commission changes SFPD policy, there

would be a 90-day period for the SFPD to hold one

community meeting at each district police station

to solicit feedback. The Chief of Police could waive

this process.

• The Commission and the SFPD would have to

reduce recordkeeping and reporting to the extent

allowed by law, with the goal that patrol officers

spend no more than 20% of their work time on

administrative tasks.

• Written use-of-force reports would be required

only if the officer’s use of force physically injured a

person or if the officer used a firearm or pointed it

at a person. In other use-of-force cases, the incident

could be reported by body-worn cameras.

• A vehicle pursuit would be allowed when an officer

has reasonable suspicion that a person committed,

is committing or is likely to commit a felony or

violent misdemeanor.

• The Commission has until October 1, 2024, to adopt

new policies consistent with this measure.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

38-EN-M24-CP73

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E

• The SFPD could use drones for vehicle pursuits and

active criminal investigations.

• With the intent to improve public safety, the Chief of

Police could authorize installing public surveillance

cameras, without Commission approval, after hold-

ing a community meeting.

• Drones and public surveillance cameras installed

under these rules could include facial recognition

technology and would not require Board approval.

The SFPD could use other surveillance technology

if it submits the policy to the Board within one year.

The Board could disapprove this policy.

• Until January 1, 2027, any changes to this new

ordinance must be approved by a supermajority

of the Board. After that date, the changes could be

approved by a majority of the Board.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to:

• Allow the SFPD to conduct community meetings

before the Commission can change SFPD policies;

• Require the Commission and the SFPD to reduce

recordkeeping and reporting for officers;

• Set new policies regarding use-of-force reporting

and vehicle pursuit by SFPD officers and allow the

Commission to modify other policies;

• Authorize the SFPD to use drones and install

surveillance cameras without Commission or Board

approval, including those with facial recognition

technology; and

• Authorize the SFPD to use new surveillance technol-

ogy unless the Board disapproves.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want

to make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "E"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following

statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition E:

Should the proposed initiative ordinance be approved

by the voters, in my opinion, in and of itself it would

not affect the cost of government. Depending on the

operational decisions made by the San Francisco

Police Department (SFPD), there may be cost savings

due to decreased administrative duties for officers,

although at a level that cannot be determined.

The proposed initiative ordinance would require that

the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) give

public notice and solicit community input on proposed

policy changes, with at least one community meeting

at each of the ten district stations.

The proposed initiative ordinance modifies SFPD’s

existing use of force and vehicle pursuit policies and

allows body-worn cameras and drones under certain

circumstances. If the ordinance is approved, officers

will only be required to write written reports if a use

of force results in injury, complaint of injury, or if a

firearm is pointed at a person. Otherwise, use of force

reporting requirements will be met through body

camera footage.

Additionally, if approved, the ordinance would change

the process to install public safety cameras. Additional

reliance on body-worn cameras, public safety cameras

and drones may increase the SFPD’s need for technol-

ogy equipment.

How "E" Got on the Ballot

On November 20, 2023, the Department of

Elections received a proposed ordinance signed by

Mayor Breed.

The Municipal Elections Code allows the Mayor to

place an ordinance on the ballot in this manner.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP74

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E

Proposition E weakens the police commission's ability

to provide independent oversight and accountability

for SFPD. Police Commissioners are appointed by the

Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Proposition E

undermines the Police Commission.

Proposition E is deceptive. It strips away existing

safeguards designed to protect us from dangerous

technology and police abuse. These safeguards are in

place because SFPD has a long history of misconduct

and discrimination against communities of color.

Proposition E misleads the public by suggesting that

SFPD cannot use technology today. The truth is, SFPD

can use many technologies if they have safety rules

approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Proposition E eliminates guardrails and lets police use

invasive surveillance technology — even face scanning

drones according to the City Attorney - without safety

policies or oversight.

Proposition E makes it harder to hold police officers

accountable for racial profiling and use of force by

watering down important reporting requirements.

San Franciscans deserve more information about

police misconduct, not less.

Proposition E endorses dangerous vehicle chases for

low level offenses and will lead to more civilian deaths.

Proposition E is about politics, not public safety. To

improve community safety, San Francisco must focus

on evidence-based solutions such as affordable hous-

ing, mental health care, and substance use treatment.

San Franciscans deserve better than this cynical

Proposition. City leaders should propose real strate-

gies to address community safety instead of pushing

an unserious ballot measure that takes us backwards.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION E

ACLU of Northern California

VOTE YES ON E TO MAKE SAN FRANCISCO SAFER

Proposition E: Safer San Francisco puts our police offi-

cers in the best position to serve our communities by

giving them the tools and rules they need to enforce

laws, while preventing the Police Commission from

interfering in community safety efforts.

Prop E gives officers 21st-century technology tools.

Prop E changes city policies to allow police officers to

use publicly-owned cameras and public safety drones

to prevent, investigate, and solve crimes. Right now,

SFPD officers are prevented from using these tools in

real-time to help prevent and solve crimes like retail

theft, auto theft, and car break-ins.

Prop E gets more officers out on the street.

Prop E eliminates duplicative reporting requirements,

reducing the amount of time officers are behind a desk

and getting them back on the street. In most cases, the

officers can use technology like body-worn cameras

to record incident information, instead of filling out

excessive paperwork, which keeps officers from patrol-

ling our streets.

Prop E changes rules to get more officers pursuing

criminals.

Prop E changes the rules to allow officers to actively

pursue suspects of felonies and violent misdemeanors,

including retail theft, vehicle theft, and auto burglaries,

so long as the pursuit can be done safely. Right now,

our officers are restricted in the actions they can take.

Prop E prevents the Police Commission from putting

ideology before community safety.

Prop E prevents the Police Commission from micro-

managing the Chief of Police and ensures that any new

policies put in place do not require more than 20%

of an officer’s total on-duty time spent on adminis-

trative duties.

Give our police officers the TOOLS to do their jobs

with 21st-century technology, and change the RULES

to get more officers out on the street deterring crime

and pursuing criminals.

Vote YES on Prop E.

Mayor London Breed

Proponent’s Argument Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP75

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E

Prop E opponents support the status quo – a system

that allows criminals to evade arrest and commit

brazen crime.

Prop E makes common-sense changes to rules that

make it difficult for police officers to fight crime and

make arrests.

For example, it’s easy to flee a crime scene under the

Police Commission’s rules. Prop E closes loopholes

and allows police officers to safely pursue suspects

that commit serious crimes.

Our police officers lack basic public safety tools that

other Bay Area police departments use – such as

public safety cameras in high-crime areas to deter

crime and catch criminals in the act. Prop E authorizes

use of these 21st-century technologies to prevent

car break-ins and retail theft, and gather evidence

for prosecution. Surrounding Bay Area counties use

public safety cameras, meaning criminals are currently

attracted to San Francisco where they know they’re

less likely to be caught.

Our police officers are overburdened with excessive

paperwork, spending too much time at their desks

writing reports, instead of patrolling and fighting

crime. Prop E allows officers to be more efficient with

common-sense changes such as allowing body-cam

footage to fulfill reporting requirements.

San Francisco’s Police Commission has become an

activist organization, more focused on political state-

ments than meaningful balance of oversight and public

safety. Prop E ensures new Commission rules are

vetted by the community and experts, so officers can

focus on doing their job keeping us safe.

San Francisco’s current rules enable criminal activity.

Enough is enough.

YES on Prop E to make San Francisco safer.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Prop E is a reckless measure that throws out key

reforms designed to hold police accountable and keep

people safe.

Prop E endangers pedestrians, cyclists, and other inno-

cent bystanders, along with police officers themselves,

by authorizing high-speed vehicle chases for low-level

crimes in one of the densest cities in the country.

Prop E guts key guardrails, curtails democratic

oversight, and undermines safety rules that protect

San Franciscans from new, unproven, and invasive

police surveillance. According to the City Attorney’s

Office, Prop E would allow the SFPD to use face-scan-

ning drones to pursue people, creating a disturbing

future where anyone in San Francisco could be identi-

fied and tracked from the sky.

Prop E would allow SFPD to conceal use-of-force

incidents by limiting reporting requirements despite

unacceptable racial disparities. A review of SFPD data

found that in the last quarter of 2022, the department

was 25 times more likely to use force on Black people

than on white people. This effort to lessen reporting

requirements is contrary to the U.S. Department of

Justice’s recommendations that SFPD improve and

increase its record keeping of use of force incidents.

Prop E weakens independent police oversight by

binding the hands of the Police Commission. The

community engagement process it imposes on the

Commission is redundant and burdensome, effectively

allowing the Chief of Police to stonewall any policy

changes the department opposes. By undermining the

commission’s authority, Prop E grants police the power

to police themselves, which is a recipe for disaster.

Prop E is an ill-conceived and irresponsible measure

that will make San Francisco less safe. Given SFPD’s

persistent record of racial disparities and history of

scandals, voters should let the Police Commission

fulfill its mandate of providing robust oversight and

accountability for SFPD.

We urge the people of San Francisco to vote NO on

Proposition E.

ACLU of Northern California

Opponent's Argument Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument

38-EN-M24-CP76

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E – Paid Arguments

Paid Arguments in Favor

STOP CRIME ACTION SUPPORTS PROP E

Public safety affects our quality of life – from tourism

to shopping to walking in your neighborhood. If you

don’t feel safe, you can’t go about your day without

worrying that something bad is going to happen.

SFPD is doing the best they can, but they need more

help. It’s time to give the police the tools they need to

combat retail theft, property crime, and car break-ins.

Prop E, Safer San Francisco will eliminate the maze of

requirements put in place by the Police Commission

and allow for commonsense changes that allow SFPD

to safely pursue criminals and better-use technology to

solve crimes.

As the department battles retirements and the loss

of officers, we need our current SFPD officers out

from behind their desks and back on our streets

fighting crime.

Prop E, Safer San Francisco will streamline excessive

bureaucratic requirements and allow officers to use

their body-worn cameras to record incident informa-

tion, instead of forcing every responding officer to

submit written reports back at the station.

The Police Commission needs to stop micromanaging

our officers and allow them to do their jobs, so our

neighborhoods and city feel safe again.

On March 5, VOTE YES ON E.

Stop Crime Action

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS SUPPORT PROP E

Prop E is supported by the San Francisco Police

Officers who are dedicated to keeping our city safe.

Prop E gives our Police Officers the tools they need

to do their jobs. Our officers spend too much time on

paperwork, instead of being out on the street serving

the communities we were sworn to protect.

Prop E makes sure our officers are equipped with 21st-

century technology to do their jobs. We know criminals

are using the latest technology, so our officers

need access too.

Prop E makes sure that the Police Department is not

constrained by political activists who aren’t interested

in public safety.

By voting for Prop E, our residents can back up

what we hear every day – that our residents want

our officers out on the street preventing crimes and

making arrests when crimes do occur. We’ve seen

a change in San Francisco, with more of a focus on

public safety and support for our officers in doing their

jobs. Let’s keep the progress moving forward.

Prop E is good for public safety in San Francisco.

San Francisco Police Officers Association

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

SENIORS SUPPORT PROP E

Since the start of the pandemic, crimes against seniors

have risen and our communities are less safe.

Each day, there is a viral video showing a new violent

attack, or the robbery of a local business.

We are fed up witnessing assaults and theft. We

are tired of seeing our local merchants lose their

life’s work.

Most importantly, we must ensure our elderly

neighbors and people with disabilities can travel

through their neighborhoods without fear.

That is why we are supporting Prop E.

• Prop E will untie the hands of SFPD, so they

can safely go after the criminals committing

these crimes.

• Prop E will allow more use of public safety cameras

and other technologies, to deter crime and catch

thieves and criminals in the act.

• Prop E will get our police officers back on the street

by allowing them to submit body camera footage for

incident reports, instead of sitting at a desk filling out

redundant paperwork.

38-EN-M24-CP77

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E – Paid Arguments

• Prop E will ensure the Police Commission

stops putting ideology ahead of community

safety, by mandating that no more than 20%

of an officer’s total on-duty time be spent on

administrative paperwork.

It’s time to send a message that crime will not be

tolerated.

VOTE YES ON E.

Anni Chung, President and CEO of Self-Help for

the Elderly*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

SMALL BUSINESSES SUPPORT PROP E

Small Business owners support Prop E. We are tired of

our businesses being broken into and our storefronts

being graffitied. We want more police presence in our

neighborhoods.

• Prop E will get police officers walking foot patrols

in our merchant corridors, not sitting behind desks

filling out endless amounts of paperwork.

• Prop E will make sure officers have access to

tools like public safety cameras to address

commercial burglaries.

• Prop E will help shut down the drug markets that

make it hard for small business operators to provide

jobs and serve their communities.

Small business owners want our storefronts protected,

we want our workers to feel safe coming to and from

work, and we want our customers to feel welcome in

our neighborhoods.

Prop E will make sure that public safety comes first

and that our small businesses have more protection.

Prop E is good for small businesses and good for

San Francisco.

Vote Yes on Prop E.

San Francisco Council of District Merchants

Associations

Ben Bleiman, SF Bar Owners Alliance

Sharky Laguana, Former Small Business

Commission President

Eva Lee, Chair, Chinatown Merchants Association*

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

DOWNTOWN BUSINESS SUPPORT PROP E

San Francisco is a beautiful city that draws visitors

from all over the world for both business and vacation.

Tourism spending in 2023 approached $9 billion a year,

supporting small businesses, jobs, and our overall

economy. This funding supports parks, libraries, street

cleaners, and all the services we provide to care

for those in need. To continue to grow our tourism

economy, people need to know that San Francisco is a

safe, clean, and welcoming city.

Prop E will make San Franciscans and visitors alike

feel safe and welcome in our city. Prop E will help

address the scourge of car break-ins in tourist areas

like Fisherman’s Wharf and the Palace of Fine Arts.

Prop E will give the police more tools to protect our

visitors and our workforce serving in our hotels, our

restaurants, and our retailers.

Prop E will send a message to everyone that

San Francisco is taking safety seriously and that this

is a city they can always feel safe in. Prop E will send

a message to conventions that we are a safe place

to plan their next events. When we are out recruiting

businesses and visitors, it will help us to send the

message that San Francisco is a city that cares

about safety.

A world-class city deserves world-class public safety.

Vote yes on Prop E.

Hotel Council of San Francisco

Building Owners and Managers Association of

San Francisco

San Francisco Council of District Merchants Association

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

38-EN-M24-CP78

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E – Paid Arguments

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS SUPPORT

PROP E

San Francisco is a world-class city that we are proud

to call home. Collectively, we have decades of service

representing the city. As a result, we take personal

offense when the national media and pundits take

shots at San Francisco.

Like any other major city, we face challenges — some

of which have been greatly exacerbated by the

pandemic. But despite these issues, the state of our

city remains strong.

San Francisco is making progress combating retail

theft, car break-ins, and burglaries. The city’s crime rate

continues to decline and elected officials at every level

of government are collaborating with law enforcement

to identify new ways to make the city safer.

But we can’t give up now. San Francisco police officers

need all of our help to continue this progress. That’s

why we are supporting Prop E on the March ballot.

Prop E will equip SFPD officers with 21st-century

technology to combat and solve crime, and change the

rules to allow officers to pursue suspects committing

felonies and violent misdemeanors.

Prop E uses innovative new ways to redeploy our

officers to the streets and reforms the Police

Commission process for approving new public

safety policies.

Be part of the solution and join us in voting Yes on

Prop E this March.

Senator Scott Wiener

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins

Assessor Joaquín Torres

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

AAPI Leaders and Community Organizations Strongly

Support Prop E for a Safer San Francisco

Our AAPI community supports the hard working police

officers who have done their best to protect residents

and businesses from hate crimes and store break ins.

But officers need the ability to use modern tools to

better protect us and spend more time patrolling the

neighborhoods.

Proposition E allows more public safety cameras in

high crime areas and ensures the police can access

that footage in real time to deter criminal activity,

prevent crime, and save lives. Having immediate

access to cameras recording a burglary in progress

will more likely result in the perpetrators being caught,

arrested and prosecuted.

Prop E allows use of drones to safely relay real time

location information to the police in cases of perpetra-

tors fleeing the scene of a crime.

Prop E gets police out from behind their desks

filling out excessive paperwork, and puts them back

on the street, patrolling our neighborhoods and

merchant corridors.

We are seeing public safety improvements. Prop E

will ensure those improvements continue and our

residents and businesses feel safer and are safer.

Vanita Louie, AAPI Leader

Brian Quan, Candidate for SF DCCC

Cyn Wang, Entertainment Commissioner*

Marjan Philhour, Candidate for SF DCCC

Mike Chen, Candidate for SF DCCC

Lily Ho, AAPI Leader

Jade Tu, Stop Asian Hate Activist

San Francisco Filipino American Democratic Club

Stand with Asian Americans

Stand with Asians

Forrest Liu, Stop Asian Hate Activist

Eva Lee, Chair, Chinatown Merchants Association*

Steven Lee, AAPI Leader

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

38-EN-M24-CP79

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E – Paid Arguments

YES ON PROP E FOR SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS

Over the last few years, the role of law enforcement

has been front and center. We still have a long way to

go to rebuild the trust between the African American

community and police.

But one thing that isn’t up for debate is the fact that

our society needs a strong police department to keep

all of our neighborhoods and residents safe.

We stand united in our belief that Prop E is the next

step in making San Francisco a safer city for all.

Prop E will eliminate excessive paperwork to get

more officers on the street, where they can patrol our

neighborhoods and build stronger relationships within

our community.

Prop E embraces new technology to fight crime, so

police can use 21st-century tools like public safety

cameras and other new equipment to make arrests.

Prop E will allow police to pursue suspects committing

retail theft, auto burglaries, and other high-profile

crimes that continue to put a black-eye on our city.

Prop E makes the San Francisco Police Commission

more accountable to the community by changing the

rules and mandating that new police policies must

first be vetted by the community, merchants, and

other experts that know the real-world impacts of

the policies.

Vote Yes on Prop E.

Mayor London Breed

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins

David Miles Jr., Founder, Church of Eight Wheels

Meaghan Mitchell

Reverend Amos Brown

Cedric Akbar, Executive Director, Positive Directions

Equals Change

Bayard Rustin Coalition

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

LGBTQ Community Leaders Support Prop E

Over the last few years, our local LGBTQ-owned

businesses, residents, and community have been

under attack. Whether it’s shops broken into at night,

car windows smashed in broad daylight, or the brazen

invasion of our garages and homes, our sense of

security has been threatened.

One bakery in the Castro was recently in the news for

being broken into for the sixth time. Enough is enough.

We meet regularly with the police department and it’s

clear they need more resources to fight crime.

That’s why it’s a no brainer to vote YES on Prop E.

Prop E will free up more officers to patrol the city.

How? By reducing the excessive amount of paperwork

officers need to fill out when they write a report.

Prop E will give officers more leeway to safely pursue

suspects when they are caught committing a crime.

Prop E will modernize our police department by giving

officers access to new technologies.

And, Prop E will mandate that the Police Commission

first meet with merchants, community leaders and

public safety experts, before making decisions that

directly affect our safety.

The choice is clear. Vote YES on E.

Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club

Senator Scott Wiener

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Commissioner Cyn Wang

Luis Zamora, Candidate for SF DCCC*

Joe Sangirardi, Candidate for SF DCCC

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

San Francisco Democrats for Change Endorse Prop E

As candidates running for the Democratic Central

County Committee, we are working to get our local

Democratic Party back on track by championing issues

like public safety that actually fix our city’s problems.

We are supporting Prop E because it is an essential

measure that gives police officers the 21st-century

38-EN-M24-CP80

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E – Paid Arguments

tools they need, including public safety cameras

and drones, to do their job effectively and make

our city safer.

Our city has been facing a shortage of nearly

500 officers, which hinders efforts to deter crime,

apprehend those who are committing crimes, and

solve crimes.

Police cannot be everywhere at once, especially with

our officer shortage. Allowing our officers to use

public safety cameras and drones aligns San Francisco

with other cities across the Bay Area, California,

and the world.

Prop E allows use of commonsense 21st-century tools.

It’s past time we give police the tools they need to help

get our city back on track for a Safer San Francisco.

Join San Francisco Democrats for Change in

supporting Prop

Assembly District 19

Marjan Philhour

Michela Alioto-Pier

Sara Barz

Mike Chen

Lanier Coles

Parag Gupta

Brian Quan

Catherine Stefani

Jade Tu

Assembly District 17

Cedric Akbar

Carrie Elise Barnes

Trevor Chandler

Matt Dorsey

Michael Lai

Laurence Lem Lee

Lily Ho

Peter Lee

Joe Sangirardi

Nancy Tung

Luis Zamora

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

GROWSF SUPPORTS PROP E

San Franciscans are nearly unanimous: we want

a safer city with a more effective police force. That

means a Police Department that has the tools it needs

to work more efficiently and with more transparency

and accountability. That’s what Prop E will do.

SFPD hasn’t had the necessary tools or policies to

pursue suspects fleeing in a vehicle, but Prop E fixes

that. Police will be able to follow stolen vehicles and

suspects that just broke into parked cars, and will have

the option to use drones to ensure the speeding car

can’t get away. And now bodycam footage can be used

when filing reports for use-of-force incidents. Prop E

also sets up an accountable process to access security

camera footage, including live streams only in extreme

circumstances.

Importantly, these new tools and policies come with

the proper oversight to ensure SFPD acts responsibly.

Let’s create a safer San Francisco. Vote yes on Prop E.

GrowSF

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

TOGETHERSF ACTION SUPPORTS PROP E

Every San Franciscan deserves a safe, functional city.

Instead of focusing on negative headlines and stereo-

types of our city, it’s time to get engaged and play a

role in its future.

Prop E gives voters an opportunity to be part of the

solution and address the public safety challenges

facing the city.

If we want safe streets, we need more officers

patrolling our streets. Prop E takes a smart approach

to redeploy the officers we have, so they are on beats,

instead of behind a desk.

If we want fewer car break-ins, police need better

policies to make arrests. Prop E reforms existing rules

to allow SFPD to safely pursue people suspected of

committing felonies and violent misdemeanors, such

as retail theft, vehicle theft, and auto burglaries.

38-EN-M24-CP81

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E – Paid Arguments

If we want police to be more efficient, they need the

newest, state-of-the-art equipment to do so. Prop E

will change city policy to allow police to use surveil-

lance cameras and drones to prevent, investigate, and

solve crimes.

If we want city policies that make our communities

safer, we need to force the city’s Police Commission to

focus on what matters to everyday residents. Prop E

will do that.

Vote Yes on Prop E.

TogetherSF Action

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

We strongly support this measure. It provides to SFPD

the tools it needs to keep the public safe, aligns SFPD

policies with those proven in other cities to reduce

crime without inappropriate use of force, and it limits

the power of unelected, anti-police bureaucrats.

The Briones Society

Jay Donde

Bill Jackson

Tom Rapkoch

David Cuadro

Jennie Feldman

Christian Foster

Martha Ehmann Conte

Chris Lewis

Jan Diamond

Jennifer Yan

Peter Elden

Jamie Wong

Page Chamberlain

Bill Shireman

Grazia Monares

Josh Wolff

Nick Berg

Deah Williams

Jason Clark

Jeremiah Boehner

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: The

Briones Society.

Westside Families Support Prop E

As concerned Westside residents, we strongly urge

you to vote YES on Prop E.

Over the last few years, crime in the Sunset and

Richmond has gotten out of control. Our police

department is understaffed and is being out-maneu-

vered by criminals. Garage break-ins and smashed car

windows are an everyday occurrence.

We need to give police the tools they need to make

arrests, stop brazen theft, and make our communi-

ties safe again.

Prop E would do exactly that. It will remove the

red-tape that keeps officers behind desks, instead of

patrolling our neighborhoods.

Prop E will allow police officers to pursue criminals if

they are caught in the act.

Prop E will update the department’s technology to

ensure our officers have access to 21st-century tools to

combat crime, like public safety cameras and drones.

The activists on the Police Commission have made our

public safety policies too extreme.

Prop E will take away some of their control and ensure

decisions are instead made after first engaging with

merchants, neighborhood leaders, and experts, like

retired officers — the people who understand the

impacts of these decisions.

To make the Westside safe, the decision is simple.

VOTE YES ON E.

Westside Family Democratic Club

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers

Association PAC.

YES on E

The Board of Supervisors has limited the SFPD from

using modern technology such as facial recognition

and drones. Officers are too often bogged down with

unnecessary paperwork. Proposition G will bring

common sense reforms needed to allow SFPD Officers

to effectively do their jobs and allow public oversight

of the Police Commission.

38-EN-M24-CP82

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E – Paid Arguments

San Francisco Republican Party

John Dennis, Chairman; Board Member CAGOP

Joseph Bleckman, Vice-Chair Special Events

Lisa Remmer, Vice-Chair Political Affairs

Yvette Corkrean, Vice-Chair Volunteer Activities; SFGOP

& CAGOP Endorsed Candidate for CA Senate 11

Howard Epstein, Vice-Chair Communications

Rodney Leong, Vice-Chair Digital Communications

Jacob Spangler, Executive Director

Bruce Lou, SFGOP & CAGOP Endorsed Candidate for

U.S. Congressional 11

Jason Clark, Board Member CAGOP

SFGOP.org

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

San Francisco Republican Party.

Paid Arguments Against

The last time a police use of force question was put on

the ballot, Mayor Breed remarked: “I do have concerns

about taking those types of policy matters to the ballot

box.” But election season has apparently led her to

abandon those concerns. Mayor Breed’s hastily drafted

measure will endanger the public and officers alike.

Vehicle pursuits can be a matter of life and death: Just

this year, many innocent bystanders were killed or

seriously injured by police car chases. SFPD’s current

vehicle pursuit policy, which was enacted 10 years ago,

was drafted by the police department, and championed

by then-Chief Greg Suhr. The Police Commission is

already reviewing data and speaking to stakehold-

ers—including police officers—to examine whether

there are ways to increase apprehension of fleeing

criminals while protecting the public from the inherent

risks of high speed chases. The Mayor’s poorly drafted

measure, by contrast, was written without input from

officers, the public, or consultation of data and it

shows. It inserts vague, undefined, language that will

cause confusion among officers and put the public

at risk, while doing nothing to increase public safety.

This issue is too important to be used as a political

stepping stone for the Mayor’s reelection. Join us and

former Police Commissioners Petra DeJesus, Bill Hing,

and Angela Chan in opposing this measure. We urge

you to vote no.

Cindy Elias, Police Commission President*

Max Carter-Oberstone, Police Commission

Vice President*

Kevin Benedicto, Police Commissioner*

Jesus Yañez, Police Commissioner*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Kevin

Benedicto, Max Carter-Oberstone, Cindy Elias.

The Bar Association of San Francisco is the largest

legal organization in Northern California. Our attorneys

represent countless businesses and citizens of

San Francisco.

We believe in a strong and nimble police force and we

care deeply about public safety. But Proposition E jeop-

ardizes public safety by imposing broad brush rules on

complex and nuanced police operations, and conflicts

with Department of Justice recommendations that the

City is bound to follow.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION E because:

Policing is complicated. As Chief Scott stated in

2018: “it is not a national best practice to promulgate

policing operational polices...by voter majority...This

responsibility to set and make policy adjustments and

the responsibility to manage the operations of the

Department should rest with the Police Commission

and the Chief of Police respectively.” We agreed

then and now.

It makes San Francisco less safe. Proposition E allows

police to chase via vehicle anyone suspected of a

“felony or violent misdemeanor,” changing a respected

policy established in 2013. The US DOJ recommends

that vehicle pursuits should be restricted. This is

because high speed pursuit in the densely populated

City is extremely dangerous and will result in deaths

and injury to innocent bystanders. We support

other safer tools (like drones and GPS launchers)

to help SFPD.

It creates unneeded and expensive litigation.

Proposition E will jeopardize the legally required

implementation of the 272 DOJ Recommendations

for policing in San Francisco and violate our MOU

with the DOJ.

It does not help police officers. Proposition E limits

officers' own ability to document their use of force

and violates the US DOJ Recommendation to increase

documentation.

38-EN-M24-CP83

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E – Paid Arguments

It creates redundancy. Proposition E creates redundant

rules around community involvement, already required

pursuant to the US DOJ Recommendations.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION E.

The Bar Association of San Francisco

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: The Bar

Association of San Francisco.

The last thing we need is less police oversight.

Oversight has modernized SFPD and increased

efficiency. SFPD has come a long way but massive

disparities in use of force and a long history of discrim-

ination still exists.

African Amercans, people with disabilities, and

unhoused people bear the brunt of this.

This measure will make these disparities worse by

weakening efforts to monitor police behavior to

make sure they are not engaging in racial profiling

or targeting specific communities. Not only that

it will lead to lawsuits costing this city millions of

precious dollars.

Vote No on E

Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition on Homelessness.

Vote NO on Proposition E, a measure that would

trample civil rights, endanger marginalized commu-

nities, and allow police to spy on San Franciscans

without accountability.

Prop E would roll back crucial oversight of police use

of surveillance technology. It would let police deploy

any new surveillance technology for a full year without

accountability or transparency, without examining

impacts on civil rights, and without evidence that

the technology even works. The measure could hand

police a year-long blank check to track your cellphone

location data, determine policing strategy based on

faulty and racist algorithms, or place new forms of

video or audio surveillance in your community. Under

this proposition, San Francisco’s residents and elected

officials would have little ability to prevent—or even

learn about—the use of new harmful technology for

a full year.

Prop E would erode San Francisco’s landmark 2019

Surveillance Technology Ordinance, which gave

residents a necessary voice. Currently, city agencies,

including the police department, must seek approval

from the democratically-elected Board of Supervisors

before acquiring or deploying new surveillance tech-

nologies. Agencies must also release a report to the

public describing exactly how they would be used.

This promotes transparency and ensures people have

a say in protecting the privacy and civil rights of our

community. It does NOT stop police from using new

technology. They just have to follow a reasonable

democratic process to do so.

Prop E would disempower the public and remove

critical oversight. It would give the police unilateral

authority on when, where, and how to deploy new and

invasive surveillance technologies for a full year.

Technology may help police do their job, but it should

come with accountability and transparency. Don’t let

police use our city as an experiment.

Vote NO on Prop E.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

YES

38-EN-M24-CP84

Digest by the Ballot Simpliﬁcation Committee

The Way It Is Now: State law requires every county

to provide public assistance programs for poor,

single adults age 65 and under. San Francisco does

so through the County Adult Assistance Programs

(CAAP). Generally, CAAP serves only single adults age

65 and under with no dependent children. CAAP recipi-

ents collect benefit packages that pay for or provide

needed services such as employment assistance,

housing, shelter, utilities and food. In 2023, housed

CAAP recipients generally received $712 per month.

CAAP recipients experiencing homelessness received

access to shelter and food through the City’s shelter

system and a cash grant of up to $109 per month.

CAAP recipients are entitled to full benefits regardless

of whether they are dependent on illegal drugs.

The Proposal: Proposition F would require anyone who

receives CAAP benefits to be screened for substance

use disorder if the City reasonably suspects the person

to be dependent on illegal drugs. When screening

indicates a recipient may be dependent on illegal

drugs, the City will provide a professional evaluation

and may refer the recipient to an appropriate treat-

ment program. If that program is available at no cost,

the recipient will be required to participate to continue

receiving CAAP benefits. The measure does not

require recipients to maintain sobriety to be eligible

for benefits.

Under Proposition F CAAP recipients who stop receiv-

ing benefits because they refuse to participate in a

required screening, evaluation or treatment would

continue to receive housing assistance for at least

30 days. The City may extend their housing benefits

beyond 30 days if necessary to avoid eviction.

This measure requires 50%+1 afrmative votes to pass.

Shall the City require single adults age 65 and under with no dependent

children who receive City public assistance benefits and whom the

City reasonably suspects are dependent on illegal drugs to participate

in screening, evaluation and treatment for drug dependency for those

adults to be eligible for most of those benefits?

F – Illegal Substance Dependence Screening and

Treatment for Recipients of City Public Assistance

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F

Proposition F would create a City fund to support the

costs of screening, evaluation and treatment. Any cost

savings from discontinuing public assistance would go

into that fund.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want

to require single adults age 65 and under with no

dependent children who receive City public assis-

tance benefits and are reasonably suspected to be

dependent on illegal drugs to participate in screening,

evaluation and treatment to be eligible for most of

those benefits.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want

to adopt this requirement.

Controller's Statement on "F"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following

statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition F:

Should the proposed initiative ordinance be approved

by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a moder-

ate impact on the cost of government. Administration

of the proposed program, including screening and

assessing aid recipients, is estimated to cost between

$500,000 and $1.4 million annually. These costs would

be offset by estimated annual savings of between

$100,000 and $2 million from recipients who are no

longer eligible to receive aid, with any additional

savings available for treatment and other services

for other program recipients. The total cost of this

ordinance would be dependent on operational deci-

sions made by the Human Services Agency (HSA)

and decisions made by the Mayor and the Board of

Supervisors through the normal budget process.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

38-EN-M24-CP85

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F

The proposed initiative ordinance would amend the

Administrative Code, establishing screening and

treatment requirements for County Adult Assistance

Program (CAAP) recipients with drug-related substance

use disorders. In Fiscal Year 2022-2023, there were

approximately 5,700 monthly CAAP recipients in

San Francisco. If the ordinance is approved, CAAP

recipients who decline drug screening, evaluation, and

treatment will be considered non-compliant and be

ineligible for CAAP benefits. Discontinued CAAP recipi-

ents would be provided 30 days of housing support

through either rental subsidies paid directly to the

landlord or guaranteed shelter access, with potential

extensions for eviction prevention. Housing support

would be paid for by diverting the recipient’s previous

cash grant for housed recipients or provided through

the City’s existing shelter capacity already designated

for unhoused CAAP recipients.

If the proposed ordinance is approved, the cost to

administer CAAP may increase due to new drug

screening, assessment, and case management needs

for recipients who screen positive for illegal drug use.

Case management costs may be reimbursed under

Drug Medi-Cal. Increased costs will be dependent on

operational decisions made by HSA and budget deci-

sions made by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors

through the normal budget process.

CAAP cost savings from discontinued recipients would

be diverted into a CAAP Treatment Fund (Fund), poten-

tially offsetting some costs of screening, assessments,

and treatment. Currently, CAAP recipients experiencing

homelessness receive $109 per month, with in-kind

support provided at City shelters, and housed CAAP

clients receive $712 per month. Cost savings diverted

from discontinued recipients would be diverted to

the Fund. It is unknown exactly how many clients

would be discontinued under the proposed ordinance,

savings could range from approximately $200,000 to

$4 million in the first year to approximately $100,000

to $2 million in subsequent years.

If this ordinance is approved, it may result in increased

costs if existing treatment capacity is not sufficient to

meet the increased needs under this ordinance. While

not required by the ordinance, if the City cannot meet

the demand for services with existing or planned

capacity, it may result in future costs subject to future

budget decisions made by the Mayor and the Board

of Supervisors through the normal budget process.

Services that likely have capacity to serve newly

referred CAAP clients include medication treatment,

outpatient substance use disorder treatment, and

mutual support groups. Additional capacity may be

needed for residential treatment, withdrawal manage-

ment, or residential step-down treatment programs.

Total costs for treatment will depend on the number of

CAAP clients who participate in treatment and in which

program they participate. For context, for residential

treatment programs, the treatment cost for a 90-day

stay ranges from approximately $28,000 to $40,000

per person with reimbursement rates ranging from

approximately $16,000 to approximately $28,000.

How "F" Got on the Ballot

On November 20, 2023, the Department of

Elections received a proposed ordinance signed by

Mayor Breed.

The Municipal Elections Code allows the Mayor to

place an ordinance on the ballot in this manner.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP86

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F

VOTE YES ON PROP F FOR TREATMENT +

ACCOUNTABILITY

Prop F, the Treatment + Accountability Measure, adds

another tool to San Francisco’s efforts to address the

deadly drug use that is creating serious public safety

hazards and fueling an overdose crisis on our streets.

Two people a day are dying of overdoses from

Fentanyl and other deadly drugs in San Francisco.

These are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers,

brothers and sisters. Offers of treatment without

accountability are not enough. We must do more to

get people into treatment and save lives.

But under current state law, San Francisco lacks tools

to compel people into treatment. The City deploys

street teams to offer voluntary services and connec-

tions to treatment. While some people do accept help,

many do not, being unwilling or unable to do so.

Prop F would allow the City to require single adults

with substance abuse to participate in treatment in

order to continue receiving cash assistance from the

City and County of San Francisco.

Applicants will be offered substance use treatment if

they are deemed to have a substance abuse condition.

These treatment programs include a range of interven-

tions, such as: residential treatment, medical detox,

medically assisted treatment, outpatient options, and

abstinence-based treatment, depending on the needs

of the client.

Right now, San Francisco serves over 4,000 people

with medication assisted treatment through medica-

tions like buprenorphine and methadone. Today,

San Francisco can sign people up the same day they

apply to one of these programs.

Prop F strikes the right balance between compassion

and accountability, to ensure that substance abuse

treatment is accepted more often than it is declined.

Vote YES on Prop F for compassion and accountability.

Mayor London Breed

No Rebuttal to the Proponent’s

Argument In Favor of

Proposition F Was Submitted

Proponent’s Argument

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP87

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F

Prop F will increase the number of people experiencing

homelessness in San Francisco by taking away the

basic services and support systems that keep those in

greatest need off the streets.

Beyond more homelessness, Prop F will not solve

problems with crime by making vulnerable people

even more destitute.

San Francisco's government already cannot meet the

current demands of the overdose crisis. Experts agree

we simply do not have enough treatment capacity and

supportive housing available for those who want care

and need treatment.

Prop F defies accepted best practices for treating

substance use disorder and addressing homelessness,

and will have deadly results. Research by public health

experts shows indisputable evidence that proposals

such as Prop F lead to increased rates of return to

substance use, overdose deaths, and suicide.

This initiative will take away vital assistance and

employment services from low-income San Franciscans.

San Francisco city government must prioritize getting

people experiencing substance use disorder into stable

and safe housing, and supportive services that serve

as a pathway to treatment; not search for new ways

to deny them basic support and sustenance and force

them into the streets where they will grow the ranks of

the homeless population.

San Francisco city leaders have failed to fulfill their

promises to expand our public health system's

capacity to address drug use and homelessness by

not following through on their own 2022 Overdose

Prevention Plan.

Don't let City Hall off the hook.

Vote NO on Prop F and join us at

www.ReduceSFHomelessness.org.

Roma Guy, MSW and Former Public Health

Commissioner*

Diane Jones, Registered Nurse*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and

not on behalf of an organization.

2023 is San Francisco’s deadliest year for drug over-

doses. In the United States, 2022 was the deadliest

overdose year on record. Fentanyl is a national crisis

that demands new strategies.

Prop F ensures the City isn’t subsidizing addiction and

making the crisis worse.

Prop F balances compassion and accountability to

prevent overdoses and deaths, and gets people suffer-

ing from addiction into treatment.

Prop F has built-in eviction prevention and rental

subsidies, to ensure anyone who temporarily loses

cash assistance still has a roof over their head.

Prop F has built-in guardrails that ensure NO ONE

loses cash assistance if the City doesn’t have treatment

options available.

Prop F does not mandate sobriety. It asks individuals

for good-faith efforts to seek treatment, in exchange

for City-funded cash assistance.

Prop F ensures individuals are paired with the right

treatment option, instead of mandating a one-size-fits-

all treatment plan for everyone.

San Francisco Department of Public Health serves

25,000 people annually with mental health and

addiction care, including over 4,000 people with

medication-assisted treatment like buprenorphine and

methadone. Right now, people can start treatment as

soon as they apply to one of these medication

programs.

Prop F is another tool the City can use to address the

substance abuse that is ruining lives and fueling poor

street conditions. It will create more accountability

and help San Francisco make progress fixing the

drug crisis.

Without Prop F, people will keep dying in record

numbers on San Francisco’s streets. The status quo is

unacceptable.

Vote Yes on F to save lives.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Opponent's Argument Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument

38-EN-M24-CP88

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F – Paid Arguments

Paid Arguments in Favor

We are addicts in recovery who support Proposition F.

Two people a day in San Francisco are dying of

overdoses from Fentanyl and other deadly drugs. More

people have died from drug overdoses in our city than

COVID. This is a crisis we have been unable to address

in a significant way.

Right now under state law, San Francisco lacks tools

to compel people into drug treatment. While the City

street teams offer voluntary services and connections

to treatment, many people do not accept being

unwilling or unable to do so.

Prop F would allow the City to require single adults

with substance abuse to participate in treatment in

order to continue receiving cash assistance from the

City and County of San Francisco. Proposition F adds

another tool to San Francisco’s efforts to address the

deadly drug use that is creating serious public safety

hazards and fueling an overdose crisis on our streets.

Offers of treatment without accountability are not

enough. We must pass Proposition F to get more

people into treatment. These are sons and daughters,

mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, we have to

try everything in our power to save lives.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Positive Directions Equals Change

Sister’s Circle Women’s Support Network

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for Treatment, Compassion and Accountable.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

Chris Larsen.

SMALL BUSINESSES SUPPORT PROP F

San Francisco’s small businesses are the economic

engine that power our city and that help make our

city’s neighborhoods full of character and vibrancy.

But too many of our businesses are suffering from the

impact of the drug crisis fueled by the most powerful

drugs we have ever seen or experienced. This crisis

has resulted in break ins by those looking to fund

their drug addiction, and dangerous drug fueled

behavior outside our businesses scaring employees

and customers.

We are supporting Proposition F because it’s an

essential tool the City currently lacks to be able to

compel people into treatment for drug use. The City

deploys street teams to offer voluntary services and

connections to treatment, but most people don’t

accept help, being unwilling or unable to do so.

Proposition F would allow the City to require single

adults with substance abuse to participate in treatment

in order to continue receiving cash assistance from the

City and County of San Francisco.

Proposition F is the type of strong, compassionate,

and effective action we need to help address our drug

crisis with treatment and accountability.

Ben Bleiman, SF Bar Owners Alliance

San Francisco Council of District Merchants

Associations

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

Eva Lee, Chair, Chinatown Merchants Association*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for Treatment, Compassion and Accountability.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

Chris Larsen.

LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS SUPPORT PROP F

San Francisco is a world-class city, known for its

beautiful skyline, amazing restaurants, one-of-a-kind

culture, and tolerance. But one thing we cannot

continue to tolerate is the drug crisis happening on

our streets. People are dying everyday as a result

of fentanyl.

That’s why it’s important we all support Prop F and take

the next step in addressing the fentanyl crisis.

Prop F will give the City the power to mandate

substance treatment for people receiving cash

benefits. Now, let’s be clear. This isn’t mandating

sobriety. It’s important to recognize that getting clean

takes time and each person is unique when it comes to

receiving treatment.

That’s why, Prop F and the City will ensure that

many different types of treatment are available

for individuals. This will not be a one-size-fits-all

solution for users.

38-EN-M24-CP89

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F – Paid Arguments

Prop F also has guard rails so if there aren’t enough

treatment slots available, people won’t lose their

cash assistance. Prop F also has a provision that

will ensure people have 30-day eviction prevention

and rental subsidies, so people won’t lose the roof

over their head.

That’s why Prop F gets our support and why you

should support it too.

Vote YES on Prop F.

Assessor Joaquín Torres

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for Treatment, Compassion and Accountability.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

Chris Larsen.

AAPI COMMUNITY SUPPORTS PROP F

San Francisco is expected to have a record 800 fatal

drug overdoses by the end of 2023, with most of those

overdoses caused by Fentanyl.

We have to take action NOW to ensure more people

get into treatment, to save their life. Continuing

to allow people to die on our streets is not

compassionate.

Proposition F would allow the City to require single

adults with substance abuse to participate in treatment

in order to continue receiving cash assistance from the

City and County of San Francisco. It’s past time we take

this next step to require people to participate in some

treatment program. They have to try.

Proposition F also sends a strong message that

San Francisco is closed to those who want to come

to our city to freely do drugs on our streets. The

door is shut!

Vanita Louie, AAPI Leader

Cyn Wang, Entertainment Commissioner*

Lily Ho, DCCC Candidate

Marjan Philhour, DCCC Candidate

Brian Quan, DCCC Candidate

Jade Tu, DCCC Candidate

Steven Lee, AAPI Leader

Eva Lee, Chair, Chinatown Merchants Association*

Forrest Liu, Stop Asian Hate Activist

Filipino American Democratic Club

Stand With Asians

Stand with Asian Americans

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for Treatment, Compassion and Accountability.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

Chris Larsen.

PROP F CAN SAVE LIVES

The African American community is disproportionately

affected by the overdose crisis compared to other

racial or ethnic groups in San Francisco.

Too many people are dying each day from drug

overdoses – sons, daughters, brothers and sisters.

Proposition F is that extra incentive that will

help compel people into drug treatment that can

save their life.

We are a compassionate city that offers treatment on

demand for those struggling with substance use. But

many who are suffering need extra incentive to engage

those treatment options and help them on a path

to recovery.

The status quo is not working. Together, we can help

save lives by voting Yes on Proposition F.

Mayor London Breed

Cedric Akbar, Director, Positive Directions

Equals Change

Reverend Amos Brown

David Miles, Church of 8 Wheels

Meaghan Mitchell

Bayard Rustin Coalition

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for Treatment, Compassion and Accountability.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

Chris Larsen.

Democrats for Change support Prop F to ensure

Treatment and Accountability

As candidates on the SF Democrats for Change slate,

running for the San Francisco Democratic Central

County Committee, we support Proposition F.

Too many people suffer in the vise of drug addiction,

and more people in San Francisco have died from drug

38-EN-M24-CP90

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F – Paid Arguments

overdoses than died from COVID since the start of

the pandemic.

Yet our city doesn’t have the ability to compel people

into treatment and potentially save their life.

Proposition F is the right balance between compassion

and accountability, to ensure that substance abuse

treatment is accepted by people more often than it

is declined.

Right now San Francisco treats 4,000 people with

medication assisted treatment through medications

like buprenorphine and methadone. There is treatment

available the same day someone wants to access that

treatment. Let’s help people into treatment by voting

Yes on Proposition F.

Assembly District 19

Marjan Philhour

Michela Alioto-Pier

Sara Barz

Lanier Coles

Parag Gupta

Brian Quan

Catherine Stefani

Jade Tu

Assembly District 17

Cedric Akbar

Carrie Elise Barnes

Matt Dorsey

Emma Heiken

Lily Ho

Michael Lai

Laurence Lem Lee

Peter Lee

Nancy Tung

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for Treatment, Compassion and Accountability.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

Chris Larsen.

GROWSF SUPPORTS PROP F

Proposition F is a common sense measure that will

help people get off drugs, into treatment, and back

on their feet.

According to the September 2023 GrowSF Pulse poll,

74% of San Franciscans believe that people who are

homeless and addicted to drugs should be required

to enter substance abuse treatment in order to obtain

housing and other services. We agree with regular

San Franciscans.

Prop F doesn’t require total sobriety to get assistance.

Instead, Prop F only requires that drug addicts partici-

pate in a drug treatment program. Prop F will save

lives by helping people access the treatment they need

instead of a taxpayer-funded addiction. Recovery is

possible, and we should help people get there.

GrowSF

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition for Treatment, Compassion and Accountability.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

Chris Larsen.

San Francisco today is Disneyland for drug tourists,

but with free admission, food, and lodging. Society

has a responsibility to help the least fortunate become

healthy and self-sufficient. It doesn’t have a respon-

sibility to subsidize addiction and self-harm. This

measure is a step in the right direction.

The Briones Society

Jay Donde

Bill Jackson

Tom Rapkoch

David Cuadro

Jennie Feldman

Christian Foster

Martha Ehmann Conte

Chris Lewis

Jan Diamond

Jennifer Yan

Peter Elden

Jamie Wong

Page Chamberlain

Bill Shireman

Grazia Monares

Josh Wolff

Nick Berg

Deah Williams

Jason Clark

Jeremiah Boehner

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

The Briones Society.

38-EN-M24-CP91

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F – Paid Arguments

Vote Yes on Proposition F to improve street conditions

and save lives.

Too many people with substance use disorders are

deteriorating on our streets. Too many are dying every

day, despite offers of treatment many don’t accept. It

impacts our entire community, especially families.

Proposition F is a critical step we can take to incentiv-

ize those with substance use disorders to participate

in a treatment program by requiring single adults with

substance use disorder to participate in treatment in

order to continue receiving cash assistance from the

City and County of San Francisco.

San Francisco serves over 4,000 people with

medication-assisted treatment through medications

like buprenorphine and methadone. People can access

immediate treatment the same day they apply to one

of these programs.

It’s simply no longer okay to allow those who are a

danger to themselves and others to refuse treatment

without any accountability. Proposition F is part of a

multi-pronged approach to address the Fentanyl crisis,

and strikes the right balance between compassion and

accountability.

Join us in voting Yes on Proposition F to improve

street conditions and save lives.

Westside Family Democratic Club

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Yes on F, for Treatment, Compassion and Accountability.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:

Chris Larsen.

Paid Arguments Against

Prop F will increase homelessness and discourage

people from seeking treatment.

Unhoused welfare recipients get a very paltry amount

of cash equal to a little over $5 a day. For housed

folks, they get a few hundred bucks to cover shelter,

food and everything else. But they have to work for it

unless they have a documented disability. There is one

exception - they get their work requirement waived if

they enter treatment.

This measure would instead discourage people from

seeking treatment who need it, because they would be

at risk of losing their housing, shelter and income.

Vote No on F

Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Coalition on Homelessness.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE NONPROFITS

OPPOSE PROP F!

Prop F will take away basic benefits from people

struggling with homelessness, disabilities and

behavioral health issues, forcing them into a treatment

system already facing a shortage of beds. By taking

away support, this measure will increase homeless-

ness and poverty. We need to address substance

use disorders with evidence-based public health

strategies, not punitive measures with unknown

consequences and costs.

San Francisco Human Services Network

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

San Francisco Human Services Network.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 100. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 31.

YES

38-EN-M24-CP92

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G

YES

Digest by the Ballot Simpliﬁcation Committee

The Way It Is Now: The San Francisco Unified School

District (School District) is a public agency that is

separate from the City and operates the San Francisco

public school system. The School District previously

offered Algebra 1 courses to students in eighth grade.

The School District currently offers Algebra 1 courses

to students starting in ninth grade.

The Proposal: Proposition G would make it City policy

to encourage the School District to offer Algebra 1 to

students by their eighth-grade year and to support the

School District’s development of its math curriculum

for students at all grade levels.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to

make it City policy to encourage the School District to

offer Algebra 1 to students by their eighth-grade year

and to support the School District’s development of its

math curriculum.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want

to adopt this as City policy.

Controller's Statement on "G"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following

statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition G:

Should the proposed declaration of policy be approved

by the voters, in my opinion, it would have no cost

to government.

This measure requires 50%+1 afrmative votes to pass.

Shall it be City policy to encourage the San Francisco Unified School

District to offer Algebra 1 to students by their eighth-grade year and

to support the School District’s development of its math curriculum?

G – Oering Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders

How "G" Got on the Ballot

On November 14, 2023, the Board of Supervisors

voted 10 to 1 to place Proposition G on the ballot. The

Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Chan, Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Melgar,

Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani.

No: Walton.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

38-EN-M24-CP93

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G

Proponent's Argument

VOTE YES ON PROP G TO BRING BACK ALGEBRA

San Francisco’s 8th graders have not been allowed to

take algebra the past decade.

The school board moved algebra to high school,

hoping it would make math outcomes more equitable.

But the well-intended policy had the opposite effect.

It held back the kids who love math without providing

additional help to the kids who were falling behind.

Prohibiting 8th grade Algebra made it difficult for

students interested in technology careers to advance

enough in math to satisfy college requirements.

Families left public schools over the issue. Kids who

stayed had to double up on math courses or pay for

private classes to ensure they reached calculus by

senior year. Kids without extra resources lost out.

That’s why we want all of San Francisco’s 8th graders

to have access to algebra, just like the vast majority of

8th graders in the Bay Area — without having to take

two math classes at the same time or being forced into

summer school.

Prop G calls for ending the school district’s failed alge-

bra experiment. Prop G says the City of San Francisco

will officially encourage our schools to offer algebra by

8th grade and support the development of a coherent

math curriculum at every grade level that is rooted in

educational excellence.

We need to better prepare all students for algebra —

and not punish those who are ready. If a kid likes math,

let’s encourage it!

Prop G is a consensus measure put on the ballot by 10

of the 11 city supervisors.

Please join us by voting yes,

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

Supervisor Myrna Melgar

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

No Rebuttal or Opponent’s

Argument Against Proposition G

Was Submitted

38-EN-M24-CP94

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G – Paid Arguments

Paid Arguments in Favor

Do our kids deserve the same opportunities as other

Bay Area kids?

In SF, in the beating heart of the tech world, our public

school kids can’t take algebra until 9th grade… while

other Bay Area kids take it in 7th.

Our kids who want to learn calculus — and be on

track for science and tech careers — have to take two

years of advanced math in just one year… or leave

our schools.

Families have been leaving. 500 kids left when algebra

was removed. Today 1 in 7 leave at middle school.

They shouldn’t have to go.

You may hear it’s hard to bring algebra back — but

most Bay Area districts do it.

You may hear it’s inequitable— but removing algebra

made the equity gap worse.

You may hear it’s expensive — and there is a one-time

cost to train some 26 teachers — but you’ll bring fami-

lies back, with their funding, for years.

What’s the cost of NOT offering algebra? Not just

families and funding, but lives derailed, scientific

discoveries not made, technology not invented.

Enrollment is down and we’re talking about

closing schools.

What’s best for our kids?

Bring algebra back — to bring families back, and their

funding with them, year after year.

Bring algebra back — so disadvantaged kids can have

science and tech careers.

Bring algebra back — because it’s best for our kids.

Please help.

Vote YES on G if you expect our kids to have the same

opportunities in math as other Bay Area kids – because

our kids are JUST as capable.

Vote YES on G if you ALSO expect support for young

children who are struggling in math – because you

know they can succeed.

Vote YES on G to Bring Algebra Back.

Autumn Looijen,

Founder, SF Guardians

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

San Francisco Youth Leader Says YES on G

As an advocate for young San Franciscans like myself,

I urge you to vote YES on G. Our schools are out of

step with the overwhelming majority of Bay Area

schools, and it is having a detrimental impact on the

future options for San Francisco youth.

Students who do not take Algebra 1 in 8th Grade find

themselves in a predicament: when they delay taking

Algebra 1 until high school, it limits the time available

for future courses–which then reflects on their report

cards if they choose to apply to college.

Students oriented to STEM studies are especially

impacted by this, and are often forced to take expen-

sive summer classes–that only some families can

afford–to make up the difference.

At the same time, the original intention of the policy

removing 8th Grade Algebra has not produced the

results of greater math achievement and equity. In fact,

the opposite has happened.

Our schools should serve every student: those who

excel at math and those who struggle. Our education

system should be designed so that students who are

ready for Algebra 1 in 8th Grade, and those who aren’t,

are able to take classes designed for their needs and

which will challenge them at the right level.

That is what high quality education is–schools that

meet the needs of students. To help deliver this,

vote YES on G!

Ewan Barker Plummer

Chair, San Francisco Youth Commission*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

38-EN-M24-CP95

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G – Paid Arguments

Educators Support 8th Grade Algebra as a Choice for

Students & Preparation to Get There

As educators, we firmly believe San Francisco needs a

strong and diverse pipeline of well-prepared students

ready for college coursework and careers in science,

technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.

But instead of equitably and transparently building

that pipeline, the San Francisco Unified School District

has squandered ten years on a flawed and inequitable

math program by denying 8th grade Algebra to

students who were ready for it. The policy was based

on misleading data and inaccurate success metrics.

The result: Increased inequities — not increased

opportunities.

Suburban students do not need to find workarounds

to reach Calculus by 12th grade. Neither should ours.

Proposition G is San Francisco voters’ demand that

our schools’ math programs match our community’s

educational values and intentions: Algebra as a

choice in 8th grade and stronger math preparation in

earlier grades.

Please vote YES on proposition G!

Karen Arnold, Math Teacher*

Marinell Jochnowitz, Speech-Language Pathologist*

Marcia Parrott, Retired teacher and principal*

Mariclare Ballard, Retired Teacher*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

I am the African American grandfather of a Lincoln

High School junior.

San Francisco families should not be forced to

overcome the obstacles we had to so that my grand-

daughter could take Algebra in 8th grade. That’s why

I’m asking you to support Proposition G.

Instead of the policy working for families, we were

forced to work around it. I did just that by putting my

granddaughter in a summer Algebra I class at a cost of

$860. She spent her summer studying math.

In 9th grade, she doubled up with Algebra I and

Geometry. Other parents used the same workaround.

But many parents just pulled their kids out of public

school and others were deprived of this important

gateway for their kids to have a clear path to STEM

jobs in their futures. Not every family has $860 for a

summer math class.

The School Board made a big decision that caused

a Decade of Damage when it voted in 2014 to move

Algebra to the 9th grade. The hope was that Math

Scores for Black and Brown students would improve

and we could narrow the achievement gap. It didn’t

happen. In fact, the gap just got worse.

It is a No-Brainer that Algebra I should be offered in

the 8th grade.

Vote YES on Proposition G to bring Algebra back to

8th grade, and give younger kids support so they’re

ready for it.

Rex Ridgeway

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” I noticed that my

7th grade son was bored doing middle school math,

because it was a repeat of what he learned in elemen-

tary. He excelled in that course, studying common

core, and had a love for Science, too. It provided

him the foundation to go forward taking advanced

problem-solving equations. Algebra in the 8th grade

will provide the tools to thrive.

I have two sons in SFUSD who excelled in math during

their elementary school years. I had not been aware

that Algebra 1 was moved out of 8th grade in 2014. My

youngest completed his math assignments within 15

minutes, because he was not challenged, and the joy

of science slowly disappeared by the end of 6th grade.

8th grade Algebra is the foundation for critical thinking.

It must return in the fall 2024.

Families are putting their kids in private schools

because Algebra 1 is not offered in the 8th grade. No

matter what class, culture, race, ethnicity or gender,

parents want what is best for their children. Too much

damage has been done since Algebra was moved in

2014. Now kids must double up in math courses in the

9th grade in order to stay on course for a STEM career.

My son should not have to do this in order to stay on

38-EN-M24-CP96

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G – Paid Arguments

track. He should have a choice, unlike his older brother,

who did not.

I am in favor of 8th grade Algebra returning to the

classroom in the fall of 2024.

Please vote YES on proposition G

Chanel Blackwell, African American

Parent of a 7th grader, A.P. Giannini Middle School*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

SF Parents support Prop G!

Ten years ago, S.F. Unified eliminated algebra from its

8th grade curriculum based on a well-intended desire

to “detrack” its schools and give students from under-

represented groups a better chance at taking more

advanced classes later.

Unfortunately, the results have been disastrous and

had the exact opposite of its intended effect. The

education gap in math increased as low-income Black

and Latino students no longer had access to advanced

math courses from the district, while higher-income

White and Asian students were able to supplement

with private math classes.

S.F. kids can’t wait. SFUSD needs to right this wrong

immediately and bring back algebra to 8th grade.

Fortunately, SFUSD began this process earlier this

school year and is making progress. But now that

Proposition G is in front of us, we need to show the

school board just how important it is that they give our

students the education they need. Vote yes on Prop G.

SF Parent Action

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

Ten years ago, SFUSD slowed down its math

curriculum and held back students from learning

more quickly, removing algebra from 8th grade in the

process. While the intentions were good, the policy

was bad: the students whom SFUSD was trying to

help did not benefit, and math instruction became less

effective and less equitable. Meanwhile San Francisco,

the world leader in tech, fell behind in teaching math.

For years, SFUSD covered up its failure, until volun-

teers at our organization published a detailed exposé

in 2021. The results of our analysis were verified two

years later by a rigorous Stanford report.

Now, SFUSD has pledged both to reform its math

instruction and to tell the truth about how students

are doing. This ballot measure says you want the City

of San Francisco to encourage and support SFUSD in

those efforts.

Please vote YES on Proposition G.

Patrick Wolff, Founder, Families for San Francisco*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

As San Francisco public school parents, we want

students to have the choice to take Algebra in 8th

grade. Algebra is the foundation for STEM courses

and careers.

Ten years ago, SFUSD took this choice away because

some 8th graders weren’t ready, and SFUSD thought

moving Algebra to 9th

grade would help close an

equity gap. Independent analyses and SFUSD’s own

data now show the gap has actually worsened.

It’s no secret that many families have left SFUSD in

recent years or found “workarounds.” For example,

to reach Calculus before graduating, SFUSD students

have had to take costly online math courses on

their own time or double up on math at the expense

of other subjects. Most disturbingly, the algebra

policy has further disadvantaged the very kids it was

supposed to help.

Algebra should be part of SFUSD’s 8th grade offerings.

As parents of elementary, middle, and high schoolers

in SFUSD, we want all kids to have that choice.

Please vote YES to tell SFUSD to restore 8th

grade Algebra!

38-EN-M24-CP97

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G – Paid Arguments

Supryia Ray, Victoria Carlton, Nicole Cook, Tim

Carlstedt, Susie Decker, Hannah Fairbanks, Jeff

Fairbanks, Caroline Flagiello, Alfred Nicolai (Nick)

Francis, Amy Golsong, Sarah Hammond, Luis

Hernandez, Jason Lamacchia, Frank Lee, Amanda

McDougall, Patrick McLaughlin, Bo Nierhaus, Todd

Nystul, Ssungha Park, Andrea Pollock, Karen Prince,

Celeste Sempere, Gordon Shettle, Adrian Wadley,

Katherine Wadley, Cyn Wang, Xi Wang, Lindsay West,

Alexander (Alex) Wong, Arleen Yamayoshi-Wong

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

Students used to take Algebra I in eighth grade. In 2014

SFUSD delayed Algebra I to ninth, making it difficult

to take calculus in twelfth, which is critical for STEM

college entry.

I paid for an Algebra I class for my daughter in eighth

so she could take calculus in twelfth. She is now a

college STEM senior.

SFUSD claimed 40% of the last class with Algebra I

in eighth grade had to repeat it. The actual data

(bit.ly/sfusdmathdata) shows only 100 out of 2,359

(4.2%, not 40%) failed Algebra I. 195 out of 2,957 (6.6%)

of the first class that took it in ninth failed. There was

no improvement.

SFUSD also incorrectly claims an increase in precalcu-

lus enrollment. They created an Algebra II + Precalculus

class so students could reach calculus in twelfth. UC

categorizes it as Algebra II because it is missing critical

content; it doesn’t count as precalculus.

A Stanford study found the delay hasn’t reduced

equity gaps despite incorrectly counting this class as

precalculus.

This ballot measure is an opportunity to show support

for SFUSD students regaining access to Algebra I in

eighth grade. Without it, under-resourced students who

want to go into STEM risk being left behind.

Please join me in voting YES on proposition G!

Maya Keshavan

Parent of two SFUSD alumni

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

“Yes” on Proposition G provides access to an educa-

tion that is fundamental to our future.

As Chinese American parents and community

members, we know education has always been the

gateway to freedom and success. In San Francisco,

Chinese families arriving in the 1800s fought for

schooling for our children. Fifty years ago, young

Kinney Lau went all the way to the United States

Supreme Court challenging the San Francisco School

District’s failure to provide equal educational opportu-

nity for limited English proficient students. That victory

set an important nationwide precedent for immigrant

children and families.

Today, we stand with all communities supporting

Proposition G, which is a declaration of policy that

states Algebra should once again be taught in 8th

grade. This ensures that math education will be

improved for all students, grades, schools and

communities.

As San Francisco plans to be a world leading high tech

center, we should prepare all San Francisco children

to assume their roles in that future. Since 2014, we’ve

been told “No” to have Algebra taught in 8th grade.

Proposition G says “Yes” to Algebra for students ready

for it and “Yes” to increasing math instruction opportu-

nities in all grades.

Eddie Chin, Former School Board Commissioner

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Self funded - Eddie Chin.

San Francisco Taxpayers Association says Bring

Algebra Back; Yes on G

When City Hall doesn’t listen to the citizens of

San Francisco, bad policies are born. The same is true

when the School Board ignores parents.

One of the worst decisions the School Board has made

in my 53 years of observing them was ending Algebra

in middle school in 2014. They felt that not enough

students were doing well in Algebra so instead of

improving instruction, they stopped offering it to any

student until high school. Meanwhile, suburban school

districts continued to advance their children from

middle to high school mathematics to prepare them

for competitive college majors and future careers in

science, technology, engineering and math.

38-EN-M24-CP98

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G – Paid Arguments

Proposition G makes clear what San Francisco families

have said all along. Improve math curriculum for the

younger students so that they are better prepared to

take Algebra in middle school if they so choose. And

bring back 8th grade Algebra.

More education, not less. It’s that simple.

Judge Quentin L. Kopp (Ret.)

San Francisco Taxpayers Association

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

San Francisco Taxpayers Association.

Algebra is already taught in eighth grade in

San Francisco — but only to children of wealthy

families in private schools. If SFUSD can’t competently

teach math to the middle school students it serves,

then the solution isn’t to stop teaching math, it’s to

reform SFUSD.

The Briones Society

Jay Donde

Bill Jackson

Tom Rapkoch

David Cuadro

Jennie Feldman

Christian Foster

Martha Ehmann Conte

Chris Lewis

Jan Diamond

Jennifer Yan

Peter Elden

Jamie Wong

Page Chamberlain

Bill Shireman

Grazia Monares

Josh Wolff

Nick Berg

Deah Williams

Jason Clark

Jeremiah Boehner

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

The Briones Society.

As an executive at Linkedln, I built systems which

helped millions of people get jobs, and I have seen

firsthand how essential a strong education is for

success later in life. That’s why I’m advocating for

better education for our kids.

This proposition would overturn a policy created 10

years ago which currently stops students from taking

Algebra in 8th grade and makes them wait until 9th

grade. I, and many other education advocates, have

analyzed data from before and after the policy change,

and found that this policy has hurt roughly 19,000

students who would have passed Algebra in 8th

grade over the last 10 years. In other words, 53% of all

students who were in San Francisco public schools for

8th grade should be ahead of where they are.

Restore Algebra to 8th grade now. Vote yes.

John Jersin

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

John Jersin.

SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTS

PROPOSITION G

The San Francisco Democratic Party endorses a Yes

vote on Proposition G, the declaration of city policy

that our public schools should offer Algebra in 8th

grade. Proposition G also supports the School District’s

efforts to improve math curriculum in all grades in all

schools for all communities.

Restoring Algebra to middle schools will improve the

pathway for college and STEM careers for our young

people and increase school district revenue by helping

attract and keep children in our public schools.

Vote Yes on Proposition G.

San Francisco Democratic Party

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Bring Algebra Back 2024.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, 2. SF Guardians,

3. John Trasviña.

As committed Democrats working to strengthen our

public schools, we support bringing back Algebra to

8th Grade. The decision to delay advanced math to

High School created yet another institutional barrier to

learning, worsening the education gap for students of

color instead of solving it. This policy has also given

an unfair advantage to those who can afford private

tutoring or private schools. With SFUSD facing an

enrollment crisis we must do everything possible to

make SFUSD curriculum the highest quality so families

don’t feel their children will be at a disadvantage if

they attend San Francisco’s public schools.

We must look at outcomes over intent, and the

outcomes are clear: the Algebra experiment has

failed. It’s time to let our kids learn and strengthen our

public schools.

38-EN-M24-CP99

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G – Paid Arguments

San Francisco Democrats for Change DCCC Slate

www.sfdemocratsforchange.org

Lily Ho, Democratic Leader & Activist

Laurance Lee, Democratic Leader & Activist

Peter Lee, Democratic Leader & Activist

Trevor Chandler, Democratic Leader & Activist

Carrie Elise Barnes, Democratic Leader & Activist

Luis Zamora, Democratic Leader & Activist

Parag Gupta, Democratic Leader & Activist

Jade Tu, Democratic Leader & Activist

Mike Chen, Democratic Leader & Activist

Lanier Coles, Democratic Leader & Activist

Sara Barz, Democratic Leader & Activist

Marjan Philhour, Democratic Leader & Activist

Brian Quan, Democratic Leader & Activist

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Families for a Vibrant SF.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee:

1. Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, 2. Christian Larsen,

3. Emmet Shear.

Vote YES on G.

Let’s tell our school district they need to bring back 8th

grade algebra! I am a child of Chinese immigrants who

took algebra with Ms. Rueda at Presidio Middle School.

Let’s give today’s students this opportunity to prepare

for a 21st century career.

Laurance Lem Lee

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Laurance Lem Lee.

Vote “yes” to restore opportunity to all students in

San Francisco's public middle schools. Today, at least

a quarter of San Francisco’s children attend private

school, compared to only nine percent throughout

California. Public school students must be given

the option to take algebra in middle school, and the

SFUSD must develop a math curriculum that not only

competes with but exceeds the offerings of private

middle schools.

San Franciscans must resoundingly decree that we will

neither accept nor tolerate failed SFUSD policies that

have steadily led to a significant decline in enrollment,

which in turn reduces SFUSD revenue. The SFUSD

must attract families to our city by creating a stellar

public school system.

San Franciscans entrust our most precious resource,

our children, to the SFUSD. Demand that the district do

the maximum, not the minimum, to prepare students

to take the most advanced math courses they can, as

early as they can. Science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics are profoundly important for our

students, and voting “yes” opens the door of opportu-

nity to all.

Christine Linnenbach

President

Friends of Lowell Foundation*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as

an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

Christine A. Linnenbach.

Yes on G

For years, the Board of Education has been disman-

tling our public education in the name of equity. The

elimination of Algebra in 8th grade has handicapped

our children. Without Algebra in 8th grade, it’s nearly

impossible to take AP Calculus. Since colleges have

eliminated SAT scores, AP scores are now the only

meaningful assessment for college. Bringing Algebra

back to 8th grade is the right step!

San Francisco Republican Party

John Dennis, Chairman; Board Member CAGOP

Thomas Sleckman, Secretary, Election Integrity Officer

Joseph Bleckman, Vice-Chair Special Events

Lisa Remmer, Vice-Chair Political Affairs

Yvette Corkrean, Vice-Chair Volunteer Activities; SFGOP

& CAGOP Endorsed Candidate for CA Senate 11

Howard Epstein, Vice-Chair Communications

Rodney Leong, Vice-Chair Digital Communications

Jacob Spangler, Executive Director

Stephanie Jeong

Bruce Lou, SFGOP & CAGOP Endorsed Candidate for

U.S. Congressional 11

Jason Clark, Board Member CAGOP

SFGOP.org

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument:

San Francisco Republican Party.

No Paid Arguments Against

Proposition G Were Submitted

100

38-EN-M24-CP100

Legal Text – Proposition A

and displacement due to loss of income related to the pandemic.

These investments included (i) establishment of the Emergency

Rental Assistance Program, (ii) expansion of the Homeowner

Emergency Loan Program, and (iii) issuance of a moratorium on

evictions due to nonpayment of rent.

D. While these policies and programs provided temporary

support, overwhelming demand far exceeded and continues to

exceed the City’s available resources. The City’s economy is still

recovering from the pandemic, and the impacts of the pandemic

will have lasting effects, particularly for families and individuals

that were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic (2022

Housing Element, Figure 33).

E. The City’s ability to produce the affordable rental

housing it needs has been signicantly impacted by the limited

availability of state and federal resources. From 2018 to 2022, for

every $1 of local funding invested by the City to create affordable

housing, the City’s affordable housing projects received $2 in

funding from state and federal sources. As detailed in the 2024

Affordable Housing Bond Report, the economic environment for

affordable housing has changed signicantly in recent years,

with state affordable housing funding programs becoming more

competitive and severely oversubscribed, including the state’s

allocation of volume cap for tax-exempt housing revenue bonds.

F. The City contributes signicant resources to ensure

project delivery. San Francisco voters have approved measures

to create local funds dedicated to the construction, preserva-

tion, and rehabilitation of affordable housing, including the 2012

Housing Trust Fund and affordable housing general obligation

bonds in 2015 and 2019. The City’s local funds from the

2015 and 2019 bonds are projected to be exhausted by 2028

(2024 Affordable Housing Bond Report). Additional sources

of affordable housing funds from the City’s impact fees have

been decreasing due to the economic environment, such as

the Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee (Planning Code, Sec. 413), the

Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program (Planning Code, Sec.

415), various development agreements, and other impact fees.

Funding from such sources decreased by 95 percent between

Fiscal Year 2019-2020 and Fiscal Year 2021-2022. Moreover, the

Ofce of the Controller’s FY 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 Revenue

Letter projects only modest tax revenue growth over the coming

years, severely limiting the amount of resources the City will have

to fund the development of affordable housing.

G. The City’s economic future and ongoing recovery will

ultimately depend on its ability to produce and preserve enough

affordable housing to ensure the City’s economically diverse

households can equitably access housing and remain stably

housed in San Francisco. Failure to meet this need will result

in the displacement of more households to areas with more

affordable housing. This displacement could result in (i) greater

disparity between above moderate-income and lower-income

households in the City with little change to the City’s median

income levels as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau; and

(ii) long commutes, road congestion, and environmental harm as

people seek affordable housing at greater distances from where

they work.

H. The City places high importance on job quality and

training opportunities in the local construction industry.

I. The City and past recipients of City funding have worked

with local stakeholders to successfully implement the City’s

longstanding policy goal that all construction projects receiving

public funds should advance, to the extent nancially feasible

and legally permissible, job quality and training opportunities.

J. It is in the best interest of the City that affordable

housing construction projects be subject to strong labor

standards and antidiscrimination protections, to the extent

feasible, to ensure that such projects are built with the highest

degree of skill and as quickly as possible, to meet the City’s

urgent need for housing.

Proposition A

Ordinance calling and providing for a special election

to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on

Tuesday, March 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting to

San Francisco voters a proposition to incur bonded indebt-

edness of not-to-exceed $300,000,000, subject to indepen-

dent citizen oversight and regular audits, to nance the

construction, development, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation

of rental affordable housing, including workforce housing

and senior housing, for households ranging from extremely

low-income to moderate-income households; and related

costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes;

authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of the resulting

property tax increase, if any, to residential tenants under

Administrative Code Chapter 37; providing for the levy

and collection of taxes to pay both principal and interest

on such Bonds; incorporating the provisions of the Admin-

istrative Code relating to the Citizens’ General Obligation

Bond Oversight Committee’s review of Affordable Housing

Bond expenditures; setting certain procedures and require-

ments for the election; afrming a determination under the

California Environmental Quality Act; and nding that the

proposed Bond is consistent with the General Plan, and with

the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodied text are in

plain Arial font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics

Times New Roman font.

Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times

New Roman font.

Board amendment additions are in double-under-

lined Arial font.

Board amendment deletions are in strikethrough

Arial font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of

unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of

San Francisco:

Section 1. Findings.

A. The General Plan 2022 Housing Element (“2022

Housing Element”) of the City and County of San Francisco

(“City”) details the City’s goals, objectives, and correspond-

ing policies and programs to meet the housing needs of all

San Francisco residents, with a focus on racial and social equity.

This includes the objective to substantially expand the amount

of affordable housing for extremely low- to moderate-income

households and expand housing opportunities for middle-in-

come households (as dened in Section 3 below) (2022 Housing

Element, Objectives 4.A and 4.B), as well as the requirement for

San Francisco to plan for and support the production of 46,598

affordable housing units over the next eight years as mandated

by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan.

B. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-

opment (HUD) considers housing to be “affordable” when a

household spends 30 percent or less of their income on housing

costs, including rent and utilities. In 2022, the median rent for

a 2-bedroom apartment was $3,800, affordable to a household

earning $137,000; less than 40 percent of San Francisco

households earn this income. (2022 Housing Element, Goal 4).

C. The need for affordable housing was severely exacer-

bated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the City’s unem-

ployment rate rose to 13 percent in April 2020 from 2.2 percent

in February 2020. As a result, the City invested in policies and

programs to support residents at risk of eviction, foreclosure,

101

38-EN-M24-CP101

Legal Text – Proposition A

K. It is in the best interest of the City that project

developers of affordable housing projects work with local worker

representatives and advocates to develop health and safety

standards and protections, to the extent feasible, that will allow

workers to construct essential affordable housing quickly and

safely.

L. The Mayor’s Ofce of Housing and Community

Development (“MOHCD”) and recipients of funding from bond

proceeds authorized by this measure are strongly encouraged

to work collaboratively with local stakeholders during the project

development process, to adopt and implement strong labor

standards, antidiscrimination protections, health and safety

standards, and protections, on all projects nanced with bond

proceeds authorized by this measure, to the extent feasible.

M. In 2021, the City adopted its San Francisco Climate

Action Plan (“CAP”), which identies that one of the most

effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to ensure

San Francisco has dense and affordable inll housing, with not

less than 30% of its projected goals of 5,000 new housing units

affordable to low- and lower-income households.

N. The CAP states that providing more housing in

San Francisco affordable to workers will make it easier for the

City’s rst-responders, service industry workforce, teachers

and medical workers to live close to where they work, instead

of commuting long distances by car and generating more

greenhouse gas emissions.

O. This Board of Supervisors (“Board”) unanimously

approved the CLEE Report (Center for Law, Energy and the

Environment at UC Berkeley), which outlined potential funding

sources for the CAP, and unanimously recommended to the

Ofce of Resilience and Capital Planning that a Climate Bond be

incorporated into the City’s 10 year Capital Plan.

P. It is in the best interest of the City that all construction

projects, including affordable housing construction projects, incor-

porate strong climate protections, to the extent feasible, to ensure

that such projects are built with the strongest possible climate

standards.

Q. New construction of affordable housing built on

City-owned land will be subject to the green building standards

under Environment Code Chapter 7.

R. It is in the best interest of the City that project

developers of affordable housing projects work with local climate

advocates to develop appropriate climate standards and protec-

tions, to the extent feasible.

S. MOHCD and recipients of funding from bond proceeds

authorized by this measure are strongly encouraged to work

collaboratively with local climate advocates and the Department

of the Environment, during the project development process, to

adopt and implement strong climate standards and protections

on all projects nanced with bond proceeds authorized by this

measure, to the extent feasible.

T. According to the Department of Homelessness and

Supportive Housing (“HSH”), cisgender women and women-iden-

tied individuals make up 31% of the total number of homeless

or marginally-housed individuals documented by the City, yet an

exhaustive survey conducted by the Women’s Housing Coalition

of HSH and MOHCD shelter and housing inventory found only 92

out of 23,500 units of permanent affordable housing and 101 out

of 3,084 total shelter beds dedicated for cisgender women and

women-identied individuals, making up less than one percent

and 3.27% of the need for women-specic safe permanent

housing and shelter respectively.

U. According to HSH, over 75% of women and wom-

en-identied homeless have experienced violence on the streets

or in shelters, with over 43% experiencing sexual violence, with

a 2019 statewide study by the CA Policy Lab documenting that

80% of unsheltered women reporting sexual or violent abuse as

the cause of their homelessness.

V. According to HSH, 24% of homeless women have had

to voluntarily give up primary caretaking responsibilities due

to housing instability or homelessness, and 26% have been

pregnant while homeless.

W. Between 2019-2020, while 900 women survivors were

reported to have received placement in victim-specic shelter

and permanent housing programs, over 2,684 women survivors

of street violence, sexual exploitation and/or domestic violence

were turned away from Victim Service Provider-Emergency and

Transitional Housing, demonstrating that for every survivor who

received safe housing that year, at least another three did not.

X. According to HSH’s 2022/2023 survey of women expe-

riencing homelessness, 56% indicated they had been homeless

for over one year, including 11% who conrmed they were

homeless with their children with them and 21% who conrmed

they could be with their children if they had different housing.

Y. HSH, the Department on the Status of Women, the

Department of Public Health, MOHCD, and the Board convened

a half-day retreat with the Women’s Housing Coalition and

affordable housing providers who made recommendations

on addressing the plight of unhoused and marginally housed

cisgender and women-identied survivors of violence and abuse,

including implementing easier and quicker access to housing,

women-only safe and secure shelter and long-term housing.

Z. MOHCD will work with HSH and relevant stakeholders to

ensure that up to $30,000,000 of Bond proceeds will be allocated

to construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate housing for

extremely-low income households, very low-income households,

and/or lower-income households who need safe and stable

housing, and are experiencing (i) trauma-informed homelessness,

(ii) street violence, (iii) domestic violence and abuse, (iv) sexual

abuse and assault, and/or (v) human trafcking, which population

is overwhelming cisgender women and women-identied.

AA According to the State’s Homeless Data Integration

System, between 2017 and 2021, while California’s senior

population over the age of 55 years of age grew by 7%,

the number of seniors who became homeless as a result of

increased housing and healthcare costs, job loss or displacement

increased by 84%, a national trend that is particularly exacerbat-

ed in the Bay Area, which is one of the most expensive areas to

live in the United States.

BB. The California Department of Finance released a

population forecast in 2023 showing that San Francisco’s

population of seniors 80 years of age or older is expected to

triple in the next four decades, going from 48,000 seniors in

2020 to nearly 137,000 seniors by 2060, while at the same time,

the City’s overall population is expected to decline from about

870,000 people in 2020 to 845,000 in 2060, highlighting a signi-

cant need for affordable housing for seniors.

CC. San Francisco’s Department of Aging and Adult

Services’ (DAAS) 2021 Overview Report on Affordable Housing

for Seniors and People with Disabilities conrms that seniors

aging in place in San Francisco are spending 75% or more of

their monthly, xed income on rent each month, and struggling to

pay for other necessities like food and bills.

DD. It is in the best interest of the City that housing for

low-income seniors be prioritized in the City’s work to meet the

state-mandated Housing Element requirement to build 46,000

new affordable housing units in the next eight years.

EEH. The proposed Bond is recommended in the City’s

10-year capital plan, approved each odd-numbered year by the

Mayor and this Board of Supervisors (“BOARD”).

FFI. The proposed Bond will provide a portion of the critical

funding necessary to construct, develop, acquire, and/or reha-

bilitate rental affordable housing projects in the City (as further

dened in Section 3 below).

Section 2. A special election is called and ordered to

be held in the City on Tuesday, March 5, 2024, for the purpose

102

38-EN-M24-CP102

Legal Text – Proposition A

of submitting to the electors of the City a proposition to incur

bonded indebtedness of the City for the programs described in

the amount and for the purposes stated (herein collectively, the

“Project”):

“SAN FRANCISCO AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS.

$300,000,000 to construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate

housing, including workforce housing and senior housing, that will

be affordable to households ranging from extremely low-income

to moderate-income households, subject to independent citizen

oversight and regular audits; with a duration of up to 30 years

from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of

$0.0057/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average

annual revenues of $25,000,000; and authorizing landlords to

pass-through to residential tenants in units subject to Adminis-

trative Code Chapter 37,as such Chapter may be amended (the

“Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance”) 50

percent of the resulting increase, if any, in the real property taxes

attributable to the cost of the repayment of such Bonds, as set

forth in Administrative Code Chapter 37, as it may be amended

from time to time.”

The special election called and ordered to be held hereby

shall be referred to in this ordinance as the “Bond Special

Election.”

Section 3. PROPOSED PROGRAM. The City intends

to allocate the Bond proceeds described below to provide

to extremely low-, very low-, lower-, and moderate-income

households in San Francisco affordable housing rental and

homeownership opportunities in accordance with policies and

programs set forth by the 2022 Housing Element. “Median

Income” is the median income for the City and County of

San Francisco determined annually by the Mayor’s Ofce of

Housing and Community Development (“MOHCD”), adjusted

solely for household size, and derived in part from the income

limits and area median income determined by HUD for the

San Francisco Metro Fair Market Rent Area, but not adjusted

for a high housing cost area. For this Bond, income levels are

dened as follows: households earning up to 30 percent of

Median Income are “extremely low-income”; households earning

up to 50 percent of Median Income are “very low-income”;

households earning up to 80 percent of Median Income are

“lower-income households”; and households earning up to 120

percent of Median Income are “moderate-income households”.

Contractors and City departments shall comply with all applicable

City laws when awarding contracts or performing work funded

with the proceeds of Bonds authorized by this measure.

A. CONSTRUCTION: Up to $240,000,000 of Bond

proceeds will be allocated to construct, develop, acquire, and/

or rehabilitate new affordable rental housing, including senior

housing and workforce housing, serving extremely low-income

households, very low-income households, and lower-income

households.

B. PRESERVATION: Up to $30,000,000 of Bond proceeds

will be allocated to construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate

rental housing, so as to preserve it as affordable for lower-income

households and moderate-income households.

C. VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS HOUSING: Up to

$30,000,000 of Bond proceeds will be allocated to construct,

develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate housing for extremely-low

income households, very low-income households, and/or low-

er-income households who need safe and stable housing, and

are experiencing (i) trauma-informed homelessness, (ii) street

violence, (iii) domestic violence and abuse, (iv) sexual abuse and

assault, and/or (v) human trafcking.

D. CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. A portion of

the Bond shall be used to perform audits of the Bond, as further

described in Section 4 and Section 16 below.

Section 4. BOND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES.

The Bonds shall include the following administrative rules

and principles:

A. OVERSIGHT. The proposed Bond funds shall be

subject to approval processes and rules described in the

San Francisco Charter and Administrative Code. Pursuant to Ad-

ministrative Code Section 5.31, the Citizens’ General Obligation

Bond Oversight Committee shall conduct an annual review of

Bond spending, and shall provide an annual report of the Bond

program to the Mayor and the Board.

B. TRANSPARENCY. The City shall create and maintain a

web page outlining and describing the bond program, progress,

and activity updates. The City shall also hold an annual public

hearing and review on the bond program and its implementation

before the Capital Planning Committee and the Citizens’ General

Obligation Bond Oversight Committee.

Section 5. The estimated cost of the bond-nanced

portion of the project described in Section 2 above was xed by

the Board by the following Resolution and in the amount specied

below:

Resolution No. 528-23, on le with the Clerk of the

Board in File No. 230972 $300,000,000.

Such resolution was passed by two-thirds or more of the

Board and approved by the Mayor. In such resolution it was

recited and found by the Board that the sum of money specied

is too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and

revenue of the City in addition to the other annual expenses or

other funds derived from taxes levied for those purposes and

will require expenditures greater than the amount allowed by the

annual tax levy.

The method and manner of payment of the estimated costs

described in this ordinance are by the issuance of Bonds by the

City not exceeding the principal amount specied.

Such estimate of costs as set forth in such resolution is

adopted and determined to be the estimated cost of such bond--

nanced improvements and nancing, respectively.

Section 6. The Bond Special Election shall be held and

conducted and the votes received and canvassed, and the

returns made and the results ascertained, determined, and

declared as provided in this ordinance and in all particulars not

recited in this ordinance such election shall be held according to

the laws of the State of California (“State”) and the Charter of the

City (“Charter”) and any regulations adopted under State law or

the Charter, providing for and governing elections in the City, and

the polls for such election shall be and remain open during the

time required by such laws and regulations.

Section 7. The Bond Special Election is consolidated with

the Presidential Primary Election scheduled to be held in the City

on Tuesday, March 5, 2024 (“Presidential Primary Election”). The

voting precincts, polling places, and ofcers of election for the

Presidential Primary Election are hereby adopted, established,

designated, and named, respectively, as the voting precincts,

polling places, and ofcers of election for the Bond Special

Election called, and reference is made to the notice of election

setting forth the voting precincts, polling places, and ofcers

of election for the Presidential Primary Election by the City’s

Director of Elections to be published in the ofcial newspaper of

the City on the date required under the laws of the State.

Section 8. The ballots to be used at the Bond Special

Election shall be the ballots to be used at the Presidential

Primary Election. The word limit for ballot propositions imposed

by Municipal Elections Code Section 510 is waived. On the

ballots to be used at the Bond Special Election, in addition to any

other matter required by law to be printed thereon, shall appear

the following as a separate proposition:

“SAN FRANCISCO AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS. To

construct, develop, acquire, and/or rehabilitate housing, including

workforce housing and senior housing, that will be affordable to

households ranging from extremely low-income to moderate-in-

come households; shall the City and County of San Francisco

103

38-EN-M24-CP103

Legal Text – Proposition A

Section 16. The Bonds are subject to, and incorporate

by reference, the applicable provisions of Administrative Code

Sections 5.30-5.36 (the “Citizens’ General Obligation Bond

Oversight Committee”). Consistent with Administrative Code

Section 5.31, to the extent permitted by law, 0.1% of the gross

proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in a fund established

by the Controller’s Ofce and appropriated by the Board of Su-

pervisors at the direction of the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond

Oversight Committee to cover the costs of such committee.

Section 17. The time requirements specied in Administra-

tive Code Section 2.34 are waived.

Section 18. The City hereby declares its ofcial intent to

reimburse prior expenditures of the City incurred or expected to

be incurred prior to the issuance and sale of any series of the

Bonds in connection with the Project. The Board hereby declares

the City’s intent to reimburse the City with the proceeds of the

Bonds for expenditures with respect to the Project (the “Expen-

ditures” and each, an “Expenditure”) made on and after that

date that is no more than 60 days prior to the passage of this

ordinance. The City reasonably expects on the date hereof that it

will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds.

Each Expenditure was and will be either (a) of a type

properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal

income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date

of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the

Bonds, or (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable

from current revenues. The maximum aggregate principal

amount of the Bonds expected to be issued for the Project is

$300,000,000. The City shall make a reimbursement allocation,

which is a written allocation by the City that evidences the City’s

use of proceeds of the applicable series of Bonds to reimburse

an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the

date on which the Expenditure is paid or the related portion of

the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event

more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is

paid. The City recognizes that exceptions are available for certain

“preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis

amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of

issuance and not the year of expenditure) and Expenditures for

construction projects of at least ve years.

Section 19. Landlords may pass through to residen-

tial tenants under the Residential Stabilization and Arbitration

Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 37), as such Chapter

may be amended, 50 percent of any property tax increase

that may result from the issuance of Bonds authorized by this

ordinance, as set forth in Administrative Code Chapter 37, as

it may be amended from time to time. The City may enact

ordinances authorizing tenants to seek waivers from the pass

through based on nancial hardship.

Section 20. The appropriate ofcers, employees, represen-

tatives, and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed

to do everything necessary or desirable to accomplish the calling

and holding of the Bond Special Election, and to otherwise carry

out the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 21. Documents referenced in this ordinance are on

le with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 230971,

which is hereby declared to be a part of this ordinance as if set

forth fully herein.

issue $300,000,000 in general obligation bonds, subject to inde-

pendent citizen oversight and regular audits, with a duration of up

to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax

rate of $0.0057/$100 of assessed property value, and projected

average annual revenues of $25,000,000?”

The City’s current debt management policy is to maintain the

property tax rate for City general obligation bonds below the 2006

rate by issuing new general obligation bonds as older ones are

retired and the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may

vary based on other factors.”

Each voter to vote in favor of the foregoing bond proposition

shall mark the ballot in the location corresponding to a “YES”

vote for the proposition, and to vote against the proposition shall

mark the ballot in the location corresponding to a “NO” vote for

the proposition.

Section 9. If at the Bond Special Election it shall appear

that two-thirds of all the voters voting on the proposition voted

in favor of and authorized the incurring of bonded indebtedness

for the purposes set forth in such proposition, then such propo-

sition shall have been accepted by the electors, and the Bonds

authorized shall be issued upon the order of the Board. Such

Bonds shall bear interest at a rate not exceeding that permitted

by law.

The votes cast for and against the proposition shall be

counted separately and when two-thirds of the qualied electors,

voting on the proposition, vote in favor, the proposition shall be

deemed adopted.

Section 10. The actual expenditure of Bond proceeds

provided for in this ordinance shall be net of nancing costs.

Section 11. For the purpose of paying the principal and

interest on the Bonds, the Board shall, at the time of xing the

general tax levy and in the manner for such general tax levy

provided, levy and collect annually each year until such Bonds

are paid, or until there is a sum in the Treasury of the City, or

other account held on behalf of the Treasurer of the City, set

apart for that purpose to meet all sums coming due for the

principal and interest on the Bonds, a tax sufcient to pay the

annual interest on such Bonds as the same becomes due and

also such part of the principal thereof as shall become due before

the proceeds of a tax levied at the time for making the next

general tax levy can be made available for the payment of such

principal.

Section 12. This ordinance shall be published in

accordance with any State law requirements, and such publica-

tion shall constitute notice of the Bond Special Election and no

other notice of the Bond Special Election hereby called need be

given.

Section 13. The Planning Department has determined

that the actions contemplated in this ordinance comply with the

California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources

Code Section 21000 et seq.). Said determination is on le with

the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 230971 and is

incorporated herein by reference. The Board afrms this determi-

nation.

Section 14. On September 22, 2023, the Planning

Department issued its General Plan Referral Report nding that

the actions contemplated in this ordinance are consistent, on

balance, with the City’s General Plan and eight priority policies of

Planning Code Section 101.1. The Board adopts these ndings

as its own. A copy of said General Plan Referral Report is on le

with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 230971,

and is incorporated herein by reference.

Section 15. Under Section 53410 of the California

Government Code, the Bonds shall be for the specic purpose

authorized in this ordinance and the proceeds of such Bonds will

be applied only for such specic purpose. The City will comply

with the requirements of Sections 53410(c) and 53410(d) of the

California Government Code.

104

38-EN-M24-CP104

Legal Text – Proposition B

Proposition B

Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters at an election

to be held on March 5, 2024, to amend the Charter of the City and

County of San Francisco to dene “Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers” for

purposes of establishing minimum stafng levels for sworn ofcers

of the Police Department; and, contingent upon the Controller’s

certication that a future tax measure passed by the voters will

generate sufcient additional revenue to fund the cost of employing

Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers at specied minimum stafng levels and

the minimum amount necessary to implement a police stafng

fund: 1) set the Minimum Stafng Number for ve scal years

beginning with 1,700 full-duty sworn ofcers in year one, with

increases each year such that by the fth scal year, the Minimum

Stafng Number shall be 2,074; 2) require for a period of ve years

that the Mayor and Board of Supervisors appropriate funds to pay

for at least the number of sworn ofcers as of February 1 of the

prior scal year; 3) establish a Police Full Stafng Fund (“Fund”)

for a period of ve scal years to facilitate minimum police stafng;

4) require that $16.8 million be appropriated into the Fund in the

rst year, and varying amounts in years two through ve, calculated

based on stafng shortages, but allowing for a temporary freeze of

appropriations to the Fund after the rst year in a budgetary or

economic emergency.

Section 1. Findings.

(a) For nearly three decades, San Franciscans have been denied

the benets of a fully-staffed police force. Although policymakers have

made important progress in recent years to develop a workload-based,

data-driven methodology for establishing the number of full-duty

ofcers required to meet the City’s public safety needs, the Police

Department has not been able to hire at a pace that would allow for full

stafng.

(b) Despite considerable efforts over the last several years

to remedy the chronic shortage in stafng of full-duty ofcers, the

San Francisco Police Department faces a worsening police under-

stafng crisis. As of September 2023, there were 1,578 full-duty

sworn members in the Police Department, which is an unprecedented

low point in recent history. This is approximately 600 fewer ofcers

than required to staff the Department at a level that would meet the

City’s public safety needs, according to the Department’s assessment.

Compounding this problem is that police retirements are far outpacing

the combined annual total of new recruits and lateral transfers that the

Department has been able to hire from other law enforcement agencies.

As of September 2023, nearly 350 of the City’s current sworn ofcers

were eligible for retirement, having reached 50 years of age with 20

years or more of service.

crisis in police understafng and in the most competitive environment

for law enforcement personnel in recent history. The City’s failure to

keep up with the pace of needed hiring is resulting in mounting public

safety challenges, which involve myriad harms suffered by our residents

and visitors, in our neighborhoods and all areas of the City, and which

threaten our City’s economic wellbeing. Additionally, chronic under-

stafng in the Police Department creates needlessly expensive and

wasteful inefciencies, including overtime. In the most recent scal year,

overtime accounted for nearly 20% of the Department’s salary budget.

(d) Efforts thus far to recruit the number of full-duty sworn

ofcers required to meet the City’s public safety needs have failed.

San Francisco has been unsuccessful in competing with other law en-

forcement agencies for a limited pool of qualied candidates. Our com-

petitors offer hiring bonuses and other incentives for new recruits and

lateral transfers that San Francisco has been unable to match or exceed.

For example, the City of Alameda recently began offering $75,000 new

hire recruiting bonuses, which has allowed it to reduce its police stafng

shortage by two-thirds within ve months.

(e) This Charter amendment aims to guarantee San Franciscans

have a fully-staffed police force to ensure maximum public safety.

The amendment would establish, upon the Controller’s certication

that a future tax measure passed by the voters will generate sufcient

additional revenue to fund the cost of employing Full-Duty Sworn

Ofcers at specied minimum stafng levels and the minimum

amount necessary to implement a police stafng fund, a minimum

stafng number for full-time sworn police ofcers in San Francisco

for a ve-year period, with the goal of reaching full stafng within

that time frame. The amendment makes it possible to meet this goal

by mandating sufcient funding for the Police Department to hire the

needed number of new recruits and lateral transfers and establishing a

Police Full Stafng Fund to be used to enable the Police Department to

adequately compete with other local jurisdictions for new hires.

Section 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the

qualied voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on

March 5, 2024, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and County

by revising Section 4.127 and adding Section 16.132, to read as follows:

NOTE: Unchanged Charter text and uncodied text are in plain

font.

Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman

font.

Deletions are strike-through italics Times New Roman font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged

Charter subsections.

SEC. 4.127. POLICE DEPARTMENT.

The Police Department shall preserve the public peace, prevent and

detect crime, and protect the rights of persons and property by enforcing

the laws of the United States, the State of California, and the City and

County.

The Chief of Police may appoint and remove at pleasure special

police ofcers.

The Chief of Police shall have all powers which are now or that

may be conferred upon a sheriff by state law with respect to the sup-

pression of any riot, public tumult, disturbance of the public peace, or

organized resistance against the laws or public authority.

DISTRICT POLICE STATIONS. The Police Department shall

maintain and operate district police stations. The Police Commission,

subject to the approval by the Board of Supervisors, may establish

additional district stations, abandon or relocate any district station, or

consolidate any two or more district stations.

BUDGET. Monetary awards and settlements disbursed by the

City and County as a result of police action or inaction shall be taken

exclusively from a specic appropriation listed as a separate line item in

the Police Department budget for that purpose.

POLICE STAFFING. For purposes of the Police Stafng provi-

sions in this Section 4.127, the following denitions apply:

(a) The Full Funding Date means, as certied by the Controller

in writing to the Mayor and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the rst

day of August of the rst scal year for which the Controller estimates

that a new or modied tax passed by the voters will generate sufcient

additional general fund or dedicated revenues available both (1) to fund

the cost of employing Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers at the Minimum Stafng

Number, set pursuant to this Section 4.127, and also (2) to make depos-

its into the Police Full Stafng Fund at the minimum amount necessary

to implement Section 16.132.

(b) The Minimum Stafng Number means the minimum number of

required Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers of the Police Department.

the Department except those assigned to the San Francisco Internation-

al Airport, those on long-term leaves of absence, and Police Academy

recruits.

(d) Police Full Stafng Fund means the fund established pursuant

to Section 16.132.

105

38-EN-M24-CP105

Legal Text – Proposition B

need for the requested funds to meet expected stafng levels for that

scal year.

Except that the Board of Supervisors may not reduce the Minimum

Stafng Number as set forth in this Section 4.127 for the ve scal years

beginning on the Full Funding Date, tThe Board of Supervisors is em-

powered to adopt ordinances necessary to effectuate the purpose of this

section regarding stafng levels including but not limited to ordinances

regulating the scheduling of police training classes.

Further, the Police Commission shall initiate an annual review to

civilianize as many positions as possible and submit that report to the

Board of Supervisors annually for review and approval.

PATROL SPECIAL POLICE OFFICERS. The Commission may

appoint patrol special police ofcers and for cause may suspend or dis-

miss patrol special police ofcers after a hearing on charges duly led

with the Commission and after a fair and impartial trial. Patrol special

police ofcers shall be regulated by the Police Commission, which

may establish requirements for and procedures to govern the position,

including the power of the Chief of Police to suspend a patrol special

police ofcer pending a hearing on charges. Each patrol special police

ofcer shall be at the time of appointment not less than 21 years of age

and must possess such physical qualications as may be required by the

Commission.

Patrol special police ofcers may be designated by the Commis-

sion as the owners of a certain beat or territory which may be estab-

lished or rescinded by the Commission. Patrol special police ofcers

designated as the owners of a certain beat or territory or the legal heirs

or representatives of the owners may dispose of their interest in the beat

or territory to a person of good moral character, approved by the Police

Commission and eligible for appointment as a patrol special police

ofcer.

Commission designation of beats or territories shall not affect the

ability of private security companies to provide on-site security services

on the inside or at the entrance of any property located in the City and

County.

SECTION 16.132. THE POLICE FULL STAFFING FUND.

(a) Establishment of Fund. There is hereby established the

Police Full Stafng Fund to be administered by the Police Department.

Monies therein shall be expended or used solely by the Department,

subject to the budgetary and scal provisions of the Charter, for the

purposes set forth in this Section 16.132.

(b) Denitions.

“Department” means the Police Department.

“Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers” has the meaning set forth in Section

4.127.

“Full Funding Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.127.

“Fund” means the Police Full Stafng Fund established by this

Section 16.132.

“Minimum Stafng Number” means the minimum number of

Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers as established under Section 4.127.

“Recruitment Supplement” means an amount to be calculated by

the Controller equal to $75,000 for each Full-Duty Sworn Ofcer the

Department is, as of February 1 of each year, short of the Minimum

Stafng Number.

vide additional resources to the Department to ensure adequate stafng

of Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers and to meet the Minimum Stafng Number

in each year. These resources shall be in addition to those amounts pre-

viously appropriated for the Department’s stafng in the biennial bud-

get for the scal year preceding the Full Funding Date. The Fund will

be used exclusively to support full stafng of Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers,

including, but not limited to, recruitment and hiring efforts, advertising,

development and administration of hiring strategies, and funding hiring

incentives for new police ofcers. In recruitment efforts, the Fund will

prioritize local hiring and diversifying applicants in accordance with

the principles of the May 2015 nal report of President Obama's Task

Force on 21st Century Policing and the recommendations of the U.S.

Department of Justice's Collaborative Reform Initiative Program.

For ve scal years beginning with the Full Funding Date, the

Police Department shall consist of no less than the number of ofcers

equal to the Minimum Stafng Number. Beginning on the Full Fund-

ing Date, and every year thereafter for a total of ve scal years, the

Minimum Stafng Number shall be: (1) 1,700 in Year 1; (2) 1,800 in

Year 2; (3) 1,900 in Year 3; (4) 2,000 in Year 4; and (5) 2,074 in Year

5. Thereafter, the Minimum Stafng Number shall be established as set

forth in the next paragraphs.

By no earlier than October 1 and no later than November 1 in

every odd-numbered calendar year until the Full Funding Date and,

following the Full Funding date, in every fth calendar year thereafter,

the Chief of Police shall transmit to the Police Commission a report

describing the Ddepartment’s current number of full-duty sworn ofcers

Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers and recommending stafng levels of full-duty

sworn ofcers Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers in the subsequent two ve scal

years. The report shall include an assessment of the Police Department’s

overall stafng, the workload handled by the dDepartment’s employees,

the dDepartment’s public service objectives, the dDepartment’s legal

duties, and other information the Chief of Police deems relevant to

determining proper stafng levels of Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers full-duty

sworn ofcers. The report shall evaluate and make recommendations

regarding stafng levels at all district stations and in all types of jobs

and services performed by full-duty sworn ofcers Full-Duty Sworn

Ofcers. To guide the Chief of Police’s report, by By no later than July 1

in every odd-numbered calendar year until the Full Funding Date and,

following the Full Funding date, in every fth calendar year thereafter,

the Police Commission shall adopt a policy prescribing the methodolo-

gies that the Chief of Police may use in evaluating stafng levels, which

may include consideration of factors such as workload metrics, the

Department’s targets for levels of service, ratios between supervisory

and non-supervisory positions in the Department, whether particular

services require a xed number of hours, and other factors the Police

Commission determines are best practices or otherwise relevant. The

Chief of Police may, but is not required by this Section 4.127 to, submit

stafng reports regarding full-duty sworn ofcers Full-Duty Sworn

Ofcers to the Police Commission more frequently than set forth above.

even-numbered years. The Police Commission shall consider the most

recent report and Minimum Stafng Number in its consideration and

approval of the Police Department’s proposed budget every scal year.

Beginning in the fth calendar year following the Full Funding

Date, tThe Police Commission shall hold a public hearing regarding the

Chief of Police’s stafng report by December 31 in every year in which

the Chief of Police submits a stafng report between October 1 and

November 1, as described above odd-numbered calendar year. At that

public hearing, the Police Commission shall consider the most recent

report and adopt a Minimum Stafng Number for the Police Depart-

ment. The Police Commission shall not reduce the Minimum Stafng

Number by more than 5% year-over-year except by a two-thirds vote of

the Police Commission. The Police Commission shall consider the most

recent report and Minimum Stafng Number in its consideration and

approval of the Police Department’s proposed budget every scal year,

but the Commission shall not be required to accept or adopt any of the

recommendations in the report The Police Commission shall approve a

budget for submission to the Mayor that includes funding for the sala-

ries required to meet at least the Minimum Stafng Number as set forth

in this Section 4.127.

For the ve scal years beginning on the Full Funding Date, the

biennial budget in Section 9.101 shall appropriate funds sufcient

to pay for at least the number of Full-Duty Sworn Ofcers actually

employed as of February 1 of the prior scal year. In any of those ve

scal years, in the event that this funding level to support Full-Duty

Sworn Ofcers is lower than the amount necessary to fund the actual or

projected Full-Duty Stafng Levels described in this Section 4.127, the

Police Department may introduce an ordinance to amend the bienni-

al budget if the Department subsequently projects that it can achieve

higher Full-Duty Sworn Ofcer stafng levels than those contained in

the adopted biennial budget. No amendment to the biennial budget may

be adopted unless the Controller certies availability of funds and the

106

38-EN-M24-CP106

Legal Text – Propositions B and C

(d) Appropriations to the Fund. For the scal year beginning

on the Full Funding Date, the City shall appropriate to the Fund

$16,800,000. On July 1 of each of the subsequent four scal years – for

a total of ve scal years – the Controller shall allocate to the Fund

an amount equal to the Recruitment Supplement, but not to exceed $30

million. The City may, at its discretion, continue to appropriate money

to the Fund for more than ve scal years. The Controller shall set

aside and maintain appropriations, together with any interest earned

thereon, in the Fund. Nothing herein is intended to limit the City’s

ability to accept private donations to satisfy the required appropriations

to the Fund.

(e) Temporary Freezes. Notwithstanding subsection (d) or Charter

Section 4.127, the City may freeze contributions to the Fund at the level

of contributions for the prior scal year for any scal year after the s-

cal year beginning on the Full Funding Date when the City’s projected

budget decit for the upcoming scal year at the time of the March Joint

Report or March Update to the Five Year Financial Plan as prepared

jointly by the Controller, the Mayor’s Budget Director, and the Board

of Supervisors’ Budget Analyst exceeds $250 million, adjusted annually

beginning with Fiscal Year 2025-2026 by the percentage increase or

decrease in aggregate City discretionary revenues, as determined by the

Controller, based on calculations consistent from year to year.

(f) Unspent Funds. All unspent amounts in the Fund on June 30

of each scal year shall be returned to the General Fund.

(g) Expiration. This Section 16.132 shall expire by operation

of law ten years after the Full Funding Date, following which the City

Attorney may cause it to be removed from the Charter unless the Section

is extended by Charter amendment.

Proposition C

Ordinance amending the Business and Tax Regulations

Code to exempt from the real property transfer tax the rst

transfer of property that has been converted from nonresi-

dential to residential use and to authorize the Board of Su-

pervisors to amend or repeal any aspect of the real property

transfer tax, including adopting additional exemptions from

the tax, without voter approval to the extent constitutionally

permitted; and amending the Planning Code to allow square

footage of ofce space that is converted to non-ofce use

or demolished to be available for allocation to ofce devel-

opments of at least 50,000 square feet in gross oor area,

and to allow demolished ofce space that is preexisting on a

site to be deducted from the required allocation for an ofce

development on that same site.

NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodied text are in

plain font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics

Times New Roman font.

Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times

New Roman font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of

unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of

San Francisco:

Section 1. Article 12-C of the Business and Tax Regulations

Code is hereby amended by adding Sections 1108.7 and 1119, to

read as follows:

SEC. 1108.7. EXEMPTION FOR CONVERSION TO RESIDEN-

TIAL USE.

(a) Denitions. For purposes of this Section 1108.7, the following

terms have the following meanings:

“Converted Residential Property” has the meaning set forth in

subsection (b) of this Section 1108.7.

“Development Application” means any application for a building

permit, site permit, conditional use authorization, variance, or for any

other authorization of a conversion of a property or portion thereof

from a Nonresidential Property to a Residential Property required to be

approved by the Planning Department, Zoning Administrator, Planning

Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission.

“Exemption Certicate” means a certicate issued by the Planning

Department showing:

(1) the square feet of gross oor area being transferred that is

a First Transfer of Converted Residential Property that falls within the

5,000,000 square foot limitation in subsection (c) of this Section 1108.7;

and

(2) the total square feet of gross oor area being transferred.

“Final Approval” means:

(1) approval of a conversion’s rst Development Application,

unless such approval is appealed;

(2) if subsection (1) does not apply and a conversion only

requires a site or building permit, issuance of the rst site or building

permit, unless such permit is appealed; or

(3) if the rst Development Application or rst site or building

permit is appealed, then the nal decision upholding the Develop-

ment Application, or rst site or building permit, on the appeal by the

relevant City board or commission.

“First Certicate of Occupancy” means the earlier of a certi-

cate of nal completion and occupancy, or a temporary certicate of

occupancy, as those terms are used in Section 109A of the Building

Code, as may be amended from time to time.

“First Construction Document” means the rst building permit,

building permit addendum, or other document that authorizes construc-

tion of the conversion, not including permits or addenda for demolition,

grading, shoring, pile driving, or site preparation work.

“First Transfer” means the rst transfer of a Converted Residen-

tial Property following issuance of its First Certicate of Occupancy

if such transfer would have been subject to the tax imposed under

this Article 12-C absent the exemption in this Section 1108.7. For

Converted Residential Properties transferred in part, the rst

taxable transfer of each portion of a Converted Residential Property

following issuance of its First Certicate of Occupancy constitutes a

“First Transfer,” but subsequent transfers of the same portion do not

constitute “First Transfers.” Notwithstanding the prior sentence, a

“First Transfer” does not include any transfer of all or a portion of a

Converted Residential Property after a transfer subject to the exemption

in this Section 1108.7 where the tax on such transfer would have been

imposed on the fair market value of the entire Converted Residential

Property absent the exemption in this Section 1108.7.

“Nonresidential Property” means any property or portion of a

property, other than a Residential Property and other than a property

that contains no buildings or other structures.

“Qualifying Certicate” means a certicate issued by the

Planning Department showing the square feet of gross oor area that

is proposed to qualify as Converted Residential Property within the

5,000,000 square foot limitation in subsection (c) of this Section 1108.7.

“Residential Property” means a property or portion of a property

with a structure or structures or portion thereof that may only be used

for housing individuals, excluding travelers, vacationers, or other

similarly transient individuals, for greater than 30 consecutive days

(including permitted incidental uses). It includes, but is not limited

to, dwelling units, student housing, group housing, residential hotels,

senior housing, nursing homes, homeless shelters, and residential care

facilities, regardless of how such uses would be considered under the

Planning Code. “Residential Property” includes 100% of the gross

oor area of a live/work unit. In properties with mixed residential and

non-residential uses, “Residential Property” includes mechanical space

and common areas including but not limited to circulation, lobbies,

storage rooms, balconies, roof terraces, laundry rooms, and other

resident amenity spaces, and including parking spaces or garages, in

the proportion that such areas serve the residential uses to the total

107

38-EN-M24-CP107

Legal Text – Proposition C

square feet of gross oor area served by such areas.

(b) Converted Residential Property.

(1) For purposes of this Section 1108.7, “Converted Residen-

tial Property” means a property or portion thereof that has received a

First Certicate of Occupancy following conversion from a Nonresiden-

tial Property to a Residential Property, including conversions involving

the demolition of Nonresidential Property to construct new Residential

Property, and that meets all of the following requirements for such

conversion:

(A) received a Final Approval before January 1, 2030;

(B) a Qualifying Certicate was requested with respect

to the property or portion thereof on or after the effective date of this

Section 1108.7, but before January 1, 2030;

Approval or the effective date of this Section 1108.7, but not before the

effective date of this Section, received a First Construction Document;

and

(D) at the time of the transfer for which the exemption in

this Section 1108.7 is claimed, the square feet of gross oor area of the

improvements on the property divided by the lot area of that property is

at least one.

(2) New square feet of Residential Property gross oor area

in excess of the square feet of gross oor area of the original Nonresi-

dential Property shall constitute Converted Residential Property only

up to the new square feet of gross oor area that equals 10% of the

square feet of gross oor area that was converted from Nonresidential

Property to Residential Property.

(3) For demolitions of Nonresidential Property to construct

new Residential Property, “Converted Residential Property” includes

only the square feet of gross oor area of Residential Property in the

new building that exceeds the square feet of gross oor area of Residen-

tial Property in the demolished building, up to a maximum square feet

of gross oor area of Converted Residential Property equal to the total

gross oor area of Non-Residential Property in the demolished building

plus 10%.

effects a First Transfer of Converted Residential Property, up to the

rst 5,000,000 square feet of gross oor area of Converted Residential

Property, shall be exempt from the tax imposed under this Article 12-C,

except as otherwise provided in this Section 1108.7. For purposes of

this subsection (c), the “rst 5,000,000 square feet of gross oor area”

shall be determined in the order that the Planning Department receives

each request for a Qualifying Certicate and shall be aggregated

across all Qualifying Certicates issued and outstanding. If a deed,

instrument, or writing effects a transfer of property only a portion of

which is a First Transfer of Converted Residential Property, or only

a portion of which is within the 5,000,000 square foot limitation, the

tax shall apply to the proportion of the consideration or value that the

square feet of gross oor area transferred that is not a First Transfer

of Converted Residential Property or that is not within the 5,000,000

square foot limitation bears to the total square feet of gross oor area

transferred, with the rate in Section 1102 determined based solely on

that proportional consideration or value. Land associated with gross

oor area qualifying for the exemption in this subsection (c) shall also

be exempt in the proportion that the square feet of gross oor area

transferred that is exempt under this subsection (c) bears to the total

square feet of gross oor area transferred.

(d) Requirements for Exemption. Every person claiming the

exemption under this Section 1108.7 must do all of the following:

(1) Request, at any time after Final Approval and in the

form and manner required by the Planning Department, a Qualifying

Certicate from the Planning Department. At any time after receiving

a Qualifying Certicate, a request to conrm or adjust the square feet

of gross oor area that is proposed to qualify as Converted Residential

Property may be submitted to the Planning Department in the form

and manner required by the Planning Department. Any increase in the

square feet of gross oor area requested under this subsection (d)(1)

that exceeds the qualifying square feet of gross oor area stated on the

Qualifying Certicate or any amendment thereto shall qualify for the

exemption in this Section 1108.7 only to the extent that the 5,000,000

square foot limitation in subsection (c) has not been exceeded at the time

the Planning Department approves the requested increase.

(2) After receiving the First Certicate of Occupancy and in

the form and manner required by the Planning Department, request an

Exemption Certicate from the Planning Department for each transfer

for which the person intends to claim the exemption in this Section

1108.7. Any increase in the square feet of gross oor area requested

under this subsection (d)(2) that exceeds the qualifying square feet of

gross oor area stated on the Qualifying Certicate or any amendment

thereto shall qualify for the exemption in this Section 1108.7 only to

the extent that the 5,000,000 square foot limitation in subsection (c)

has not been exceeded at the time the Planning Department issues the

Exemption Certicate.

(3) For each transfer for which the exemption in this Section

1108.7 is claimed, submit the Exemption Certicate to the County

Recorder at the time such person submits the afdavit described in

subsection (c) or (d) of Section 1111.

(4) Failure to timely satisfy the requirements of this

subsection (d) renders the transfer ineligible for the exemption in this

Section 1108.7.

(e) Effect of Exemption on Other Taxes. Any tax exempted under

this Section 1108.7 shall be deemed to have been paid for purposes of

Section 954(d) of Article 12-A-1 of the Business and Tax Regulations

Code.

(f) Regulations. The Planning Department and the County

Recorder may each issue rules, regulations, and interpretations of this

Section 1108.7 consistent with the provisions of this Section and Article

12-C of the Business and Tax Regulations Code as may be necessary or

appropriate to carry out and enforce the exemption in this Section.

(g) Sunset Date. This Section 1108.7 shall expire by operation

of law at the end of the day on December 31, 2054, and shall not apply

to any deeds, instruments, or writings delivered on or after January 1,

2055.

SEC. 1119. AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE.

The Board of Supervisors may amend or repeal this Article 12-C

by ordinance without a vote of the people except as limited by the

California Constitution.

Section 2. Article 12-C of the Business and Tax Regulations

Code is hereby amended by revising Section 1102, to read as follows:

SEC. 1102. TAX IMPOSED.

There is hereby imposed on each deed, instrument or writing

by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the City

and County of San Francisco shall be granted, assigned, transferred

or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers,

or any other person or persons, by his or her or their direction, when

the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (not

excluding the value of any lien or encumbrances remaining thereon

at the time of sale) (a) exceeds $100 but is less than or equal to

$250,000, a tax at the rate of $2.50 for each $500 or fractional part

thereof; or (b) more than $250,000 and less than $1,000,000, a tax

at the rate of $3.40 for each $500 or fractional part thereof for the

entire value or consideration, including, but not limited to, any portion

of such value or consideration that is less than $250,000; or (c) at

least $1,000,000 and less than $5,000,000, a tax at the rate of $3.75

for each $500 or fractional part thereof for the entire value or con-

sideration, including, but not limited to, any portion of such value or

consideration that is less than $1,000,000; or (d) at least $5,000,000

and less than $10,000,000, a tax at the rate of $11.25 for each

$500 or fractional part thereof for the entire value or consideration,

including, but not limited to, any portion of such value or consider-

ation that is less than $5,000,000; or (e) at least $10,000,000 and

less than $25,000,000, a tax at the rate of $27.50 for each $500 or

fractional part thereof for the entire value or consideration, including

but not limited to, any portion of such value or consideration that is

less than $10,000,000; or (f) at least $25,000,000, a tax at the rate

108

38-EN-M24-CP108

Legal Text – Proposition C

of $30 for each $500 or fractional part thereof for the entire value or

consideration, including but not limited to, any portion of such value

or consideration that is less than $25,000,000. The People of the City

and County of San Francisco authorize the Board of Supervisors to enact

ordinances, without further voter approval, that will exempt rent-restricted

affordable housing, as the Board may dene that term, from the increased

tax rate in subsections (d), (e), and (f).

Section 3. Background on Ofce Development Allocations

Under Sections 4 and 5.

(a) The City’s Ofce Allocation Program (Planning Code

Sections 320 et seq.) sets an annual limit for new ofce devel-

opment. But the Ofce Allocation Program does not increase

the annual limit to reect conversions or demolitions of existing

ofce space, which decrease the City’s preexisting supply of

ofce space. Sections 4 and 5 of this measure would allow ofce

space that is converted to a non-ofce use or demolished to be

returned to the Ofce Allocation Program and made available for

allocation to new ofce developments of at least 50,000 square

feet in gross oor area.

(b) To construct a new ofce development, a project sponsor

must obtain an allocation from the Ofce Allocation Program.

Where new ofce space is added to a site with existing ofce space,

the Ofce Allocation Program permits converted or modied, but

not demolished, ofce space to be deducted from the required

allocation. Section 4 of this measure would permit demolished ofce

space to be deducted from the required allocation.

ofce space returns to the Ofce Allocation Program and ofce

space is subsequently proposed on that site, Section 5 of this

measure provides that the amount of preexisting ofce space on

the site shall be reduced by the amount of ofce space that was

returned to the Ofce Allocation Program.

Section 4. Article 3 of the Planning Code is hereby amended

by revising Sections 320 and 321, to read as follows:

SEC. 320. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT: DEFINITIONS.

When used in Sections 320–325, the following terms shall each

have the meaning indicated. See also Sections 102 and 321.4.

(a) “Additional ofce space” shall mean the number of

square feet of gross oor area of ofce space created by an

ofce development, reduced, in the case of a modication, or

conversion, or demolition, by the number of square feet of gross

oor area of preexisting ofce space which is lost.

* * * *

SEC. 321. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT: ANNUAL LIMIT.

(a) Limit.

(1) (A) No ofce development may be approved during

any approval period if the additional ofce space in that ofce de-

velopment, when added to the additional ofce space in all other

ofce developments previously approved during that approval

period, would exceed either 950,000 square feet or the any lesser

amount resulting from the calculation of available ofce development

pursuant to this Section 321 et. seq.application of Section 321.1. To

the extent the total square footage allowed in any approval period

is not allocated, the unallocated amount shall be carried over to

the next approval period.

(B) For the one-year approval period that

commences in October 2020, the Large Cap Maximum shall be

permanently reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage

by which the total of New Affordable Housing Units Produced in

the City during the ve calendar years of 2015-2019 is less than

the combined total of ve years of the Annual RHNA Affordable

Housing Goal (i.e., 10,210 units). In no case shall operation of

this Ssubsection (a)(1)(B) act to increase the ofce development

permitted pursuant to Ssubsection (a)(1)(A).

that commences in October 2021 and for all subsequent annual

approval periods, the Large Cap Maximum for each single year

shall be permanently reduced by a percentage equivalent to the

percentage by which New Affordable Housing Units Produced

in the City during the single complete calendar year prior to the

calendar year in which the approval period commenced is less

than the annual RHNA Affordable Housing Goal. In no case shall

operation of this Ssubsection (a)(1)(C) act to increase the ofce

development permitted pursuant to Ssubsection (a)(1)(A).

(D) For any Approval Period commencing on or after

October 17, 2024, following the completion of the calculations set forth

in subsection (a)(1)(C), the Large Cap Maximum shall be increased by

any Converted Square Footage, as provided in Section 321.4.

* * * *

Section 5. Article 3 of the Planning Code is hereby amended

by adding Section 321.4, to read as follows:

SEC. 321.4. CONVERTED SQUARE FOOTAGE; ANNUAL LIMIT

INCREASE.

(a) Denitions. For purposes of this Section 321.4, the following

terms have the following meanings:

“Converted Square Footage” means the total converted or

demolished gross oor area of Ofce Space associated with a project

that received on or after January 1, 1986: (1) a First Certicate of

Occupancy authorizing the change of use of at least 10,000 square

feet of gross oor area from Ofce Space to a non-ofce use, or (2) a

completed permit, including any nal inspections, to demolish at least

10,000 square feet of gross oor area of Ofce Space. “Converted

Square Footage” includes the gross oor area associated with any

approved Ofce Space, regardless of the type of Project Authorization

approved for the Ofce Space, or if the Ofce Space was approved prior

to November 29, 1984.

“First Certicate of Occupancy” has the meaning set forth in

Section 401, as amended from time to time.

(b) Increases to Annual Limit.

(1) For any projects that convert or demolish Ofce Space on

or after March 5, 2024, the Planning Department shall track the total

Converted Square Footage resulting from the conversions and demoli-

tions during each Approval Period, and add the total Converted Square

Footage to the Large Cap Maximum annually.

(2) For any project that converted or demolished ofce space

before March 5, 2024, the Large Cap Maximum shall be increased

by the total Converted Square Footage of such projects no later than

the Approval Period beginning October 17, 2024, consistent with the

procedures in subsection (c), including any adjustments pursuant to

subsection (c)(2).

(3) Any Converted Square Footage calculated pursuant to

subsections (b)(1)-(2) of this Section 321.4 shall be treated the same as

the newly available ofce development pursuant to Section 321(a)(1)

(A), including being carried over to the next Approval Period; however,

pursuant to Section 321(a)(1)(D), such Converted Square Footage shall

not be subject to the reductions set forth in Section 321(a)(1)(C).

(1) No later than September 1, 2024, the Zoning Admin-

istrator shall publish an inventory of projects that converted or

demolished Ofce Space between January 1, 1986 and March 5, 2024

(“Inventory”), inclusive, and the Converted Square Footage proposed

to be added to the Large Cap Maximum for the Approval Period

beginning October 17, 2024. The Zoning Administrator shall provide

the public with an opportunity for meaningful review and comment on

the Inventory. Following public review and comment, the Zoning Ad-

ministrator shall adopt the Inventory, including any revisions, pursuant

to the standard set forth in subsection (c)(3) of this Section 321.4. The

Zoning Administrator shall then update the Large Cap Maximum ac-

cordingly.

(2) Should the Zoning Administrator identify additional

Converted Square Footage after the deadlines specied in subsection

(c)(1), the Zoning Administrator shall publish an updated Inventory.

Following public review and comment, the Zoning Administrator shall

adopt the updated Inventory, including any revisions, pursuant to the

109

38-EN-M24-CP109

Legal Text – Propositions C and D

members of the public from acting as intermediaries for City

ofcers and employees with respect to certain prohibited

gifts; 5) impose personal liability on City ofcials for

failure to disclose certain relationships; 6) create generally

applicable incompatible activity rules; and 7) require

Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors super-ma-

jority approval for amendments to certain ethics-related

ordinances; and appropriating $43,000 from the General

Reserve in Fiscal Year 2023-24 to fund administrative costs

required to implement the ordinance.

NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodied text are in

plain Arial font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics

Times New Roman font.

Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times

New Roman font.

Board amendment additions are in double-under-

lined Arial font.

Board amendment deletions are in strikethrough

Arial font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of

unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables.

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

Francisco:

Section 1. Article I, Chapter 5 of the Campaign and Gov-

ernmental Conduct Code is hereby amended by adding Section

1.503, to read as follows:

SEC. 1.503. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF THIS CHAPTER.

The voters may amend or repeal this Chapter 5. The Board of

Supervisors may amend this Chapter 5 if all of the following conditions

are met:

(a) The amendment furthers the purposes of this Chapter;

(b) The Ethics Commission approves the proposed amendment in

advance by at least a four-fths vote of all its members;

30 days before the amendment is considered by the Board of Supervi-

sors or any committee of the Board of Supervisors; and

(d) The Board of Supervisors approves the proposed amendment

by at least a two-thirds vote of all its members.

Section 2. The voters hereby re-authorize and re-enact in its

entirety Article II, Chapter 1 of the Campaign and Governmental

Conduct Code, in the process revising Sections 2.103, 2.115,

2.135, and 2.145, to read as follows:

Only the proposed legal text for Measure D is printed

in this section, and this proposed text is found on

page 27 of the original legislation. The remaining

text was struck-through in the original legislation

and is not included in this section. The excluded

struck-through text may include important informa-

tion that could be useful to voters. The Department

of Elections encourages voters to review those pages

as well. The full text of this measure is available

online at sfelections.org and in every public library.

If you want a copy of the full text of the measure to

be mailed to you, please contact the Department of

Elections at (415) 554-4375 or sfvote@sfgov.org and a

copy will be mailed at no cost to you.

standard set forth in subsection (c)(3) of this Section 321.4. The new

Converted Square Footage shall be added to the Large Cap Maximum

for the Approval Period following nal approval of the updated

Inventory.

(3) In determining whether Converted Square Footage was

lawfully converted or demolished for the purposes of this Section 321.4,

the Zoning Administrator shall presume that such space was lawfully

converted or demolished unless there is clear and convincing evidence

otherwise.

(4) The Zoning Administrator is authorized to adopt such

rules and regulations as the Zoning Administrator determines are ap-

propriate to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Section 321.4,

including but not limited to the process for verifying increases to the

Large Cap Maximum resulting from any Converted Square Footage.

(d) Loss of Existing Ofce Space. Upon the issuance of a First

Certicate of Occupancy or completed demolition permit for a project

that converted or demolished Ofce Space, the amount of Preexisting

Ofce Space on the site shall be reduced by the amount of Converted

Square Footage that was returned to the Large Cap Maximum.

Section 6. Scope of Ordinance. In enacting this ordinance,

the People of the City and County of San Francisco intend to

amend only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections,

sections, articles, numbers, punctuation marks, charts, diagrams,

or any other constituent parts of the Municipal Code that are

explicitly shown in this ordinance as additions or deletions, in

accordance with the “Note” that appears under the ofcial title of

the ordinance.

Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,

clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance, or any application

thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or

unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdic-

tion, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining

portions or applications of the ordinance. The People of the

City and County of San Francisco hereby declare that they

would have enacted this ordinance and each and every section,

subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word not declared

invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any other

portion of this ordinance or application thereof would be subse-

quently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Proposition D

Motion ordering submitted to the voters, at an election

to be held on March 5, 2024, an ordinance amending the

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code to 1) expand

gift prohibitions for City ofcers and employees; 2) expand

rules prohibiting bribery; 3) require ethics training for Form

700 lers; 4) prohibit members of the public from acting as

intermediaries for City ofcers and employees with respect

to certain prohibited gifts; 5) impose personal liability on

City ofcials for failure to disclose certain relationships; 6)

create generally applicable incompatible activity rules; and

7) require Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors su-

per-majority approval for amendments to certain ethics-relat-

ed ordinances; and appropriating $43,000 from the General

Reserve in Fiscal Year 2023-24 to fund administrative costs

required to implement the ordinance.

MOVED, That pursuant to Charter Section 15.102, the Ethics

Commission hereby submits the following ordinance to the voters

of the City and County of San Francisco, at an election to be held

on March 5, 2024.

Ordinance amending the Campaign and Governmen-

tal Conduct Code to 1) expand gift prohibitions for City

ofcers and employees; 2) expand rules prohibiting bribery;

3) require ethics training for Form 700 lers; 4) prohibit

110

38-EN-M24-CP110

Legal Text – Proposition D

SEC. 2.100. FINDINGS.

(a) The voters nd that public disclosure of the identity and extent

of efforts of lobbyists to inuence decision-making regarding local

legislative and administrative matters is essential to protect public con-

dence in the responsiveness and representative nature of government

ofcials and institutions. It is the purpose and intent of this Chapter

1 to impose reasonable registration and disclosure requirements to

reveal information about lobbyists' efforts to inuence decision-making

regarding local legislative and administrative matters.

(b) To increase public condence in the fairness and responsive-

ness of governmental decision making, it is the further purpose and

intent of the people of the City and County of San Francisco to restrict

gifts, campaign contributions, and bundled campaign contributions

from lobbyists to City ofcers so that governmental decisions are not,

and do not appear to be, inuenced by the giving of personal benets

to City ofcers by lobbyists, or by lobbyists’ nancial support of City

ofcers’ political interests.

campaign consultants exploiting their inuence with City ofcials on

behalf of private interests may erode public condence in the fairness

and impartiality of City governmental decisions. The City and County

of San Francisco has a compelling interest in preventing corruption

or the appearance of corruption which could result in such erosion

of public condence. Prohibitions on campaign consultants lobbying

current and former clients will protect public condence in the electoral

and governmental processes. It is the purpose and intent of the people

of the City and County of San Francisco in enacting this Chapter to

prohibit campaign consultants from exploiting or appearing to exploit

their inuence with City ofcials on behalf of private interests.

SEC. 2.103. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF CHAPTER.

The voters may amend or repeal this Chapter. The Board of

Supervisors may amend this Chapter if all of the following conditions

are met:

(a) The amendment furthers the purposes of this Chapter;

(b) The Ethics Commission approves the proposed amendment in

advance by at least a four-fths vote of all its members;

30 days before the amendment is considered by the Board of Supervi-

sors or any committee of the Board of Supervisors; and

(d) The Board of Supervisors approves the proposed amendment

by at least a two-thirds vote of all its members.

SEC. 2.105. DEFINITIONS.

Whenever used in this Chapter 1, the following words and phrases

shall be dened as provided in this Section 2.105:

"Activity expenses" means any expense incurred or payment made

by a lobbyist or a lobbyist's client at the behest of the lobbyist, or

arranged by a lobbyist or a lobbyist's client at the behest of the lobbyist,

which benets in whole or in part any: ofcer of the City and County;

candidate for City and County ofce; aide to a member of the Board

of Supervisors; or member of the immediate family or the registered

domestic partner of an ofcer, candidate, or aide to a member of

the Board of Supervisors. An expense or payment is not an "activity

expense" unless it is incurred or made within three months of a contact

with the ofcer, candidate, or Supervisor's aide who benets from the

expense or payment, or whose immediate family member or registered

domestic partner benets from the expense or payment. "Activity

expenses" include honoraria, consulting fees, salaries, and any other

thing of value totaling more than $25 in value in a consecutive three-

month period, but do not include political contributions.

“Agency” shall mean a unit of City government that submits its

own budget to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors pursuant to Article

IX of the City Charter.

"Candidate" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section

1.104 of this Code.

"Client" means the person for whom lobbyist services are per-

formed by a lobbyist.

“Committee” shall be dened as set forth in the California Politi-

cal Reform Act, California Government Code section 81000, et seq.

"Contact lobbyist" means any individual who (1) makes ve or

more contacts in a calendar month with ofcers of the City and County

on behalf of the individual's employer; or (2) makes one or more

contacts in a calendar month with an ofcer of the City and County on

behalf of any person who pays or who becomes obligated to pay the

individual or the individual's employer for lobbyist services. An indi-

vidual is not a contact lobbyist if that individual is lobbying on behalf of

a business of which the individual owns a 20% or greater share.

“Contribution” shall have the same meaning as set forth in the

California Political Reform Act, California Government Code Section

81000, et seq.

“Controlled committee” shall have the same meaning as set forth

in Section 1.104 of this Code, but shall not include any state commit-

tees.

“Dependent child” shall mean a child or stepchild of a public of-

cial, who is under 18 years old and whom the ofcial is entitled to claim

as a dependent on his or her federal tax return.

"Economic consideration" means any payments, fees, reim-

bursement for expenses, gifts, or anything else of value, provided that

"economic consideration" does not include salary, wages or benets

furnished by a federal, state or local government agency.

"Employee" means any person who receives, reasonably expects to

receive, or whose employer is obligated to provide, an Internal Revenue

Service Form W-2 wage and tax statement.

"Employer" means any person who provides an Internal Revenue

Service Form W-2 wage and tax statement to an employee who per-

forms lobbyist services on behalf of that person.

"Expenditure lobbyist" means any person, other than any govern-

ment entity, or ofcer or employee of a government entity acting in an

ofcial capacity, who, directly or indirectly, makes payments totaling

$2,500 or more in a calendar month to solicit, request, or urge other

persons to communicate directly with an ofcer of the City and County

in order to inuence local legislative or administrative action. Exam-

ples of the types of activities the payment for which can count toward

the $2,500 threshold referred to in the previous sentence include but

are not limited to public relations, media relations, advertising, public

outreach, research, investigation, reports, analyses, and studies to the

extent those activities are used to further efforts to solicit, request or

urge other persons to communicate directly with an ofcer of the City

and County. The following types of payments shall not be considered

for the purpose of determining whether a person is an expenditure lob-

byist: payments made to a registered contact lobbyist or the registered

contact lobbyist's employer for lobbyist services; payments made to an

organization for membership dues; payments made by an organization

to distribute communications to its members; payments made by a news

media organization to develop and distribute its publications; and pay-

ments made by a client to a representative to appear in an adjudicatory

proceeding before a City agency or department.

"Gift" shall be dened as set forth in the Political Reform Act,

Government Code Section 81000 et seq., and the regulations adopted

thereunder.

“Gift of travel” shall mean payment, advance, or reimbursement

for travel, including transportation, lodging, and food and refreshment

connected with the travel.

"Lobbyist" means a contact lobbyist or expenditure lobbyist.

"Lobbyist services" means services rendered for the purpose of

inuencing local legislative or administrative action, including but not

limited to contacts with ofcers of the City and County of San Francis-

co.

"Local legislative or administrative action" includes, but is not

limited to, the drafting, introduction, consideration, modication, en-

actment, defeat, approval, veto, granting or denial by any ofcer of the

City and County of any resolution, motion, appeal, application, petition,

nomination, ordinance, amendment, approval, referral, permit, license,

entitlement to use or contract.

"Measure" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section

1.104 of this Code.

111

38-EN-M24-CP111

Legal Text – Proposition D

"Ofcer of the City and County" means any ofcer identied in

Section 3.203 of this Code, as well as any ofcial body composed of

such ofcers. In addition, for purposes of this Chapter, "ofcer of the

City and County" includes (1) members of the Board of Education,

Community College Board, First Five Commission, Law Library Board

of Trustees, Local Agency Formation Commission, Health Authority

Board, Housing Authority Commission, Parking Authority, Reloca-

tion Appeals Board, Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment

Agency of the City and County of San Francisco, Oversight Board of

the Successor Agency, Successor Agency Commission, Transportation

Authority, Workforce Investment San Francisco Board as well as any

ofcial body composed of such ofcers, and any person appointed as

the chief executive ofcer under any such board or commission; (2) the

Zoning Administrator, (3) the City Engineer, (4) the County Surveyor,

and (5) the Bureau Chief of the Department of Public Works' Bureau of

Street Use and Mapping.

"Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, asso-

ciation, rm, labor union or other organization or entity, however

organized.

“Public event” shall mean an event or gathering that any member

of the public may attend, has been publicly announced and publicized in

advance, and for which there is no admission cost or fee.

“Public hearing” means any open, noticed proceeding.

“State committee” shall mean a committee formed to support or

oppose candidates for state ofce or state ballot measures.

SEC. 2.106. LOBBYING CONTACTS.

(a) Whenever used in this Chapter 1, "contact" means any com-

munication, oral or written, including communication made through

an agent, associate or employee, for the purpose of inuencing local

legislative or administrative action, except as provided in Subsections

(b) and (c).

(b) The following activities are not "contacts" within the meaning

of this Chapter 1.

(1) A representative of a news media organization gathering

news and information or disseminating the same to the public, even if

the organization, in the ordinary course of business, publishes news

items, editorials or other commentary, or paid advertisements, that urge

action upon local legislative or administrative matters;

(2) A person providing oral or written testimony that be-

comes part of the record of a public hearing; provided, however, that if

the person making the appearance or providing testimony has already

qualied as a contact lobbyist under this Chapter and is appearing or

testifying on behalf of a client, the contact lobbyist's testimony shall

identify the client on whose behalf the contact lobbyist is appearing or

testifying;

(3) A person performing a duty or service that can be

performed only by an architect or a professional engineer licensed to

practice in the State of California;

(4) A person making a speech or producing any publication

or other material that is distributed and made available to the public,

through radio, television, cable television, or other medium of mass

communication;

(5) A person providing written information in response to

an oral or written request made by an ofcer of the City and County,

provided that the written information is a public record available for

public review;

(6) A person providing oral or written information pursuant

to a subpoena, or otherwise compelled by law or regulation;

(7) A person submitting a written petition for local legislative

or administrative action, provided that the petition is a public record

available for public review;

(8) A person making an oral or written request for a meeting,

or any other similar administrative request, if the request does not in-

clude an attempt to inuence local legislative or administrative action;

(9) A person appearing before an ofcer of the City and

County pursuant to any procedure established by law or regulation

for levying an assessment against real property for the construction or

maintenance of an improvement;

(10) A person providing purely technical data, analysis, or

expertise in the presence of a contact lobbyist;

(11) A person distributing to any ofcer of the City and

County any regularly published newsletter or other periodical which is

not primarily directed at inuencing local legislative or administrative

action;

(12) A person disseminating information or material on

behalf of an organization or entity to all or a signicant segment of the

organization's or entity's employees or members;

(13) A person appearing as a party or a representative of a

party in an administrative adjudicatory proceeding before a City agency

or department;

(14) A person communicating, on behalf of a labor union

representing City employees, regarding the establishment, amendment,

or interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement or memorandum

of understanding with the City, or communicating about a management

decision regarding the working conditions of employees represented by

a collective bargaining agreement or a memorandum of understanding

with the City;

(15) A party or prospective party to a contract providing oral

or written information in response to a request for proposals, request

for qualications, or other similar request, provided that the informa-

tion is directed to the department or ofcial specically designated in

the request to receive such information; negotiating the terms of the

contract with the City after being selected to enter into the contract;

or communicating in connection with the administration of an exist-

ing contract between the party and the City. For the purposes of this

subsection (b)(15):

(A) A "party or prospective party" includes that party's

ofcers or employees; a subcontractor listed in the contract, bid, or

proposal; or that subcontractor's ofcers or employees. A "party or

prospective party" does not include any other agent or associate, in-

cluding any outside consultant or independent contractor.

(B) Communication "in connection with the administra-

tion of an existing contract" includes, but is not limited to, communica-

tion regarding: insurance and bonding; contract performance and/or

default; requests for in-scope change orders; legislative mandates im-

posed on contractors by the City and County; payments and invoicing;

personnel changes; prevailing wage verication; liquidated damages

and other penalties for breach of contract; audits; assignments; and

subcontracting. Communication "in connection with the administration

of an existing contract" does not include communication regarding new

contracts, or out-of-scope change orders.

(16) An ofcer or employee of a nonprot organization or

an organization scally sponsored by such a nonprot organization

communicating on behalf of their organization. For purposes of this

subsection only, "nonprot organization" means either an organization

with tax exempt status under 26 United States Code Section 501(c)(3),

or an organization with tax exempt status under 26 United States Code

Section 501(c)(4) whose most recent federal tax ling included an IRS

Form 990-N or an IRS Form 990-EZ, or an organization whose next

federal tax ling is reasonably likely to include an IRS Form 990-N or

an IRS Form 990-EZ.

determining whether a person qualies as a contact lobbyist, but are

"contacts" for purpose of disclosures required by this Chapter 1:

(1) A person providing oral information to an ofcer of the

City and County in response to an oral or written request made by that

ofcer;

(2) A person making an oral or written request for the status

of an action; and

(3) A person participating in a public interested persons

meeting, workshop, or other forum convened by a City agency or de-

partment for the purpose of soliciting public input.

SEC. 2.107. NO CONFLICT WITH STATE BAR ACT.

Nothing in this Chapter is intended to regulate attorneys engaged

112

38-EN-M24-CP112

Legal Text – Proposition D

(D) The local legislative or administrative action

that the lobbyist sought to inuence, including, if any, the title and

le number of any resolution, motion, appeal, application, petition,

nomination, ordinance, amendment, approval, referral, permit, license,

entitlement, or contract, and the outcome sought by the client.

(E) The client on whose behalf each contact was made.

(F) The amount of economic consideration received

or expected by the lobbyist or the lobbyist's employer from each client

during the reporting period.

(G) All activity expenses incurred by the lobbyist during

the reporting period, including the following information:

(i) The date and amount of each activity expense;

(ii) The full name and ofcial position, if any, of the

beneciary of each activity expense, a description of the benet, and the

amount of the benet;

(iii) The full name of the payee of each activity

expense if other than the beneciary;

(iv) Whenever a lobbyist is required to report a

salary of an individual pursuant to this subsection (c)(1), the lobby-

ist need only disclose whether the total salary payments made to the

individual during the reporting period was less than or equal to $250,

greater than $250 but less than or equal to $1,000, greater than $1,000

but less than or equal to $10,000, or greater than $10,000.

(H) All campaign contributions of $100 or more made

or delivered by the lobbyist or the lobbyist's employer, or made by a

client at the behest of the lobbyist or the lobbyist's employer during

the reporting period to an ofcer of the City and County, a candidate

for such ofce, a committee controlled by such ofcer or candidate,

or a committee primarily formed to support or oppose such ofcer or

candidate, or any committee primarily formed to support or oppose a

measure to be voted on only in San Francisco. This report shall include

such campaign contributions arranged by the lobbyist, or for which the

lobbyist acted as an agent or intermediary.

The following information regarding each campaign

contribution shall be submitted to the Ethics Commission:

(i) The amount of the contribution;

(ii) The name of the contributor;

(iii) The date on which the contribution was made;

(iv) The contributor's occupation;

(v) The contributor's employer, or if self-employed,

the name of the contributor's business; and

(vi) The committee to which the contribution was

made.

(I) For each contact at which a person providing purely

technical data, analysis, or expertise was present, as described in Sec-

tion 2.106(b)(10), the name, address, employer and area of expertise of

the person providing the data, analysis or expertise.

(J) Any other information required by the Ethics Com-

mission through regulation consistent with the purposes and provisions

of this Chapter.

(2) Expenditure lobbyists. Each expenditure lobbyist shall

report to the Ethics Commission the following information:

(A) The local legislative or administrative action

that the lobbyist sought to inuence, including, if any, the title and

le number of any resolution, motion, appeal, application, petition,

nomination, ordinance, amendment, approval, referral, permit, license,

entitlement, or contract.

(B) The total amount of payments made during the

reporting period to inuence local legislative or administrative action.

reporting period, including the date of payment, the name and address

of each person receiving the payment, a description of the payment, and

a description of the consideration for which the payment was made.

(D) All campaign contributions of $100 or more made

or delivered by the lobbyist or made at the behest of the lobbyist during

the reporting period to an ofcer of the City and County, a candidate

in the practice of law under the California State Bar Act, Business and

Professions Code sections 6000 et seq.

SEC. 2.110. REGISTRATION AND DISCLOSURES; FEES;

TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION.

(a) REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS REQUIRED. Lobby-

ists shall register with the Ethics Commission and comply with the

disclosure requirements imposed by this Chapter 1. Such registration

shall occur no later than ve business days of qualifying as a lobbyist.

Contact lobbyists shall register prior to making any additional contacts

with an ofcer of the City and County of San Francisco and expendi-

ture lobbyists shall register prior to making any additional payments to

inuence local legislative or administrative action.

(b) REGISTRATION.

(1) Contact lobbyists. At the time of initial registration each

contact lobbyist shall report to the Ethics Commission the following

information:

(A) The name, business address, e-mail address, and

business telephone number of the lobbyist;

(B) The name, business address, and business telephone

number of each client for whom the lobbyist is performing lobbyist

services;

number of the lobbyist’s employer, rm or business afliation;

(D) Each agency that the contact lobbyist has attempted,

will attempt, or may attempt to inuence on behalf of any client; and

(E) Any other information required by the Ethics Com-

mission through regulation, consistent with the purposes and provisions

of this Chapter.

(2) Expenditure lobbyists. At the time of initial registration

each expenditure lobbyist shall report to the Ethics Commission the

following information:

(A) The name, mailing address, e-mail address, and

telephone number of the lobbyist;

(B) Expenditure lobbyists that are entities shall provide:

(i) a description of their nature and purpose(s);

(ii) if the expenditure lobbyist is a corporation, the

names of the corporation's chief executive ofcer, chief nancial ofcer,

and secretary, any ofcer who authorized payments to inuence local

legislative and administrative action, and any person who owns more

than 20 percent of the corporation;

(iii) if the expenditure lobbyist is a partnership, the

name of each partner if the entity has fewer than 10, or the name of the

partner with the greatest ownership interest if the entity has 10 or more

partners;

(iv) for any other type of business entity, the name

of each person with an ownership interest if the entity has fewer than 10

owners, or the name of the person with the greatest ownership interest

in the entity, if the entity has 10 or more owners;

provide a description of their business activities;

(D) Each agency that the expenditure lobbyist has made,

will make, or may make payments to inuence; and

(E) Any other information required by the Ethics Com-

mission through regulation, consistent with the purposes and provisions

of this Chapter.

each lobbyist shall submit the following information no later than the

fteenth calendar day following the end of the month:

(1) Contact lobbyists. Each contact lobbyist shall report to

the Ethics Commission the following information:

(A) The name, business address and business telephone

number of each person from whom the lobbyist or the lobbyist's employ-

er received or expected to receive economic consideration to inuence

local legislative or administrative action during the reporting period.

(B) The name of each ofcer of the City and County

of San Francisco with whom the lobbyist made a contact during the

reporting period.

113

38-EN-M24-CP113

Legal Text – Proposition D

for such ofce, a committee controlled by such ofcer or candidate,

or a committee primarily formed to support or oppose such ofcer or

candidate, or any committee primarily formed to support or oppose a

measure to be voted on only in San Francisco. This report shall include

such campaign contributions arranged by the lobbyist, or for which the

lobbyist acted as an agent or intermediary.

The following information regarding each campaign

contribution shall be submitted to the Ethics Commission:

(i) The amount of the contribution;

(ii) The name of the contributor;

(iii) The date on which the contribution was made;

(iv) The contributor's occupation;

(v) The contributor's employer, or if self-employed,

the name of the contributor's business; and

(vi) The committee to which the contribution was

made.

(E) Any other information required by the Ethics Com-

mission through regulation, consistent with the purposes and provisions

of this Chapter 1.

(d) DUTY TO UPDATE INFORMATION. Lobbyists shall

amend any information submitted to the Ethics Commission through

registration and monthly disclosures within ve days of the changed

circumstances that require correction or updating of such information.

(e) REGISTRATION AND FILING OF DISCLOSURES BY

ORGANIZATIONS. The Ethics Commission is authorized to establish

procedures to permit the registration and ling of contact lobbyist dis-

closures by a business, rm, or organization on behalf of the individual

contact lobbyists employed by those businesses, rms, or organizations.

(f) FEES; TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION.

(1) At the time of registration each lobbyist shall pay a fee

of $500. On or before every subsequent February 1, each registered

lobbyist shall pay an additional fee of $500.

(2) Failure to pay the annual fee by February 1 shall consti-

tute a termination of a lobbyist's registration with the Ethics Commis-

sion. The Ethics Commission is also authorized to establish additional

processes for the termination of a lobbyist's registration.

(3) The Ethics Commission shall waive all registration fees

for any full-time employee of a tax-exempt organization presenting

proof of the organization's tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. Section

501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).

(4) The Ethics Commission shall deposit all fees collected

pursuant to this Section in the General Fund of the City and County of

San Francisco.

SEC. 2.115. LIMITS AND PROHIBITIONS.

(a) FUTURE EMPLOYMENT. No lobbyist shall cause or inu-

ence the introduction or initiation of any local legislative or administra-

tive action for the purpose of thereafter being employed or retained to

secure its granting, denial, conrmation, rejection, passage, or defeat.

(b) FICTITIOUS PERSONS. No contact lobbyist shall contact

any ofcer of the City and County in the name of any ctitious person

or in the name of any real person, except with the consent of such real

person.

evade the obligations imposed by this Chapter through indirect efforts

or through the use of agents, associates, or employees.

(d) CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS - PROHIBITIONS.

(1) No lobbyist shall make any contribution to a City elective

ofcer or candidate for City elective ofce, including the City elective

ofcer’s or candidate’s controlled committees, if that lobbyist (A) is

registered to lobby the agency of the City elective ofcer or the agency

for which the candidate is seeking election or (B) has been registered to

lobby that agency in the previous 90 days.

(2) If a lobbyist has failed to disclose which agencies the lob-

byist attempts to inuence, as required by Section 2.110(b), the lobbyist

may not make a contribution to any City elective ofcer or candidate

for City elective ofce, or any City elective ofcer’s or candidate’s

controlled committees.

(e) BUNDLING OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS - PROHI-

BITIONS.

(1) No lobbyist shall deliver or transmit, or deliver or trans-

mit through a third party, any contribution made by another person to

any City elective ofcer or candidate for City elective ofce, or any City

elective ofcer’s or candidate’s controlled committees, if that lobbyist

(A) is registered to lobby the agency for which the candidate is seeking

election or the agency of the City elective ofcer or (B) has been regis-

tered to lobby that agency in the previous 90 days.

(2) If a lobbyist has failed to disclose which agencies the lob-

byist attempts to inuence, as required by Section 2.110(b), the lobbyist

may not deliver or transmit, or deliver or transmit through a third party,

any contribution made by another person to any City elective ofcer or

candidate for City elective ofce, or any City elective ofcer’s or candi-

date’s controlled committees.

(f) AGGREGATION OF AFFILIATED ENTITY CONTRIBU-

TIONS. For purposes of the contribution limits imposed by subsections

(e) and (f), the contributions of an entity whose contributions are direct-

ed and controlled by any lobbyist shall be aggregated with contribu-

tions made by that lobbyist as set forth in Section 1.114(c).

(g) REGULATIONS. The Ethics Commission may adopt regula-

tions implementing this Section 2.115, but such regulations may not es-

tablish any exceptions from the limits and prohibitions set forth therein.

SEC. 2.116. LOBBYIST TRAINING.

(a) Each contact lobbyist must complete a lobbyist training ses-

sion offered by the Ethics Commission within one year of the lobbyist's

initial registration. Thereafter, contact lobbyists shall attend additional

training sessions as required by the Executive Director, at his or her

discretion.

(b) The Ethics Commission shall make lobbyist training sessions

available on its website.

training session, each contact lobbyist must le a signed declaration

with the Ethics Commission stating, under penalty of perjury, that the

lobbyist has completed the required training session.

SEC. 2.117. LOBBYING BY CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS.

(a) PROHIBITION. No campaign consultant, individual who has

an ownership interest in the campaign consultant, or an employee of the

campaign consultant shall communicate with any ofcer of the City and

County who is a current or former client of the campaign consultant

on behalf of another person or entity (other than the City and County)

in exchange for economic consideration for the purpose of inuencing

local legislative or administrative action.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.

(1) This prohibition shall not apply to:

(A) an employee of a campaign consultant whose sole

duties are clerical; or

(B) an employee of a campaign consultant who did

not personally provide campaign consulting services to the ofcer of

the City and County with whom the employee seeks to communicate in

order to inuence local legislative or administrative action.

(2) The exceptions in Subsection (b)(1) shall not apply to

any person who communicates with an ofcer of the City and County in

his or her capacity as an employee of the campaign consultant who is

prohibited by Subsection (a) from making the communication.

are used in this Section, they shall mean:

(1) "Campaign consultant" shall have the same meaning as

in Article I, Chapter 5, Section 1.505 of this Code.

(2) "Campaign consulting services" shall have the same

meaning as in Article I, Chapter 5, Section 1.505 of this Code.

(3) "Current client" shall mean a person for whom the cam-

paign consultant has led a client authorization statement pursuant to

Article I, Chapter 5, Section 1.515(d) of this Code and not led a client

termination statement pursuant to Article I, Chapter 5, Section 1.515(f)

of this Code. If such person is a committee as dened by Section 82013

114

38-EN-M24-CP114

Legal Text – Propositions D and E

of the California Government Code, the current client shall be any indi-

vidual who controls such committee; any candidate that such committee

was primarily formed to support; and any proponent or opponent of

a ballot measure that the committee is primarily formed to support or

oppose.

(4) "Employee" shall mean an individual employed by a

campaign consultant, but does not include any individual who has an

ownership interest in the campaign consultant that employs them.

(5) "Former client" shall mean a person for whom the cam-

paign consultant has led a client termination statement pursuant to

Article I, Chapter 5, Section 1.515(f) of this Code within the 60 months

prior to communicating with the person.

SEC. 2.120. EMPLOYMENT OF CITY AND COUNTY OFFI-

CERS OR EMPLOYEES; APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYEE TO

CITY AND COUNTY OFFICE.

(a) EMPLOYMENT OF CITY AND COUNTY OFFICERS OR

EMPLOYEES. If any lobbyist employs or requests, recommends or

causes a client of the lobbyist to employ, and such client does employ,

any ofcer of the City and County, any immediate family member or

registered domestic partner of an ofcer of the City and County, or any

person known by such lobbyist to be a full-time employee of the City

and County, in any capacity whatsoever, the lobbyist shall le within

10 days after such employment a statement with the Ethics Commission

setting out the name of the employee, the date rst employed, the nature

of the employment duties, and the salary or rate of pay of the employee.

(b) APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYEE TO CITY OFFICE. If an

employee of a lobbyist is appointed to City or County ofce, the lobbyist

shall le within 10 days after such appointment a statement with the

Ethics Commission setting out the name of the employee, the date rst

employed, the nature of the employment duties, and the salary or rate of

pay of the employee.

the salary of an employee who is also an ofcer or employee of the City

and County pursuant to this Section, the ler need only disclose whether

the total salary payments made to the employee are less than or equal to

$250, greater than $250 but less than or equal to $1,000, greater than

$1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000, or greater than $10,000.

SEC. 2.130. EMPLOYMENT OF UNREGISTERED PER-

SONS.

It shall be unlawful knowingly to pay any contact lobbyist to con-

tact any ofcer of the City and County of San Francisco, if said contact

lobbyist is required to register under this Chapter and has not done so

by the deadlines imposed in this Chapter.

SEC. 2.135. FILING UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY; RE-

TENTION OF DOCUMENTS; AUDITS.

(a) All information required under this Chapter shall be submitted

to the Ethics Commission, in the format designated by the Commission,

which may include an electronic format. The lobbyist shall verify,

under penalty of perjury, the accuracy and completeness of the informa-

tion provided under this Chapter.

(b) The lobbyist shall retain for a period of ve years all books,

papers and documents necessary to substantiate the registration and

disclosure reports required by this Chapter. These records shall in-

clude, but not be limited to, copies of all fundraising solicitations sent

by the lobbyist or his or her agent for an ofcer of the City and County,

a candidate for such ofce, a committee controlled by such ofcer or

candidate, or a committee primarily formed to support or oppose such

ofcer or candidate, or any committee primarily formed to support or

oppose a ballot measure to be voted on only in San Francisco.

The text above contains the rst 20 pages proposed

text in Measure D which begins on page 27 of the

legal text for this measure. The preceding pages

of legal text include the struck-through text that

this measure seeks to change. The pages with

struck-through text have been excluded and include

important information that could be useful to voters.

The Department of Elections encourages voters

to review those pages as well. The full text of this

measure is available online at sfelections.org and

in every public library. If you desire a copy of the

full text of the measure to be mailed to you, please

contact the Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375

or sfvote@sfgov.org and a copy will be mailed at no

cost to you.

Proposition E

Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to 1) require

a standardized community engagement process before

the Police Commission changes policies or procedures

regarding Police Department operations; 2) require the

Commission and Department to consider administra-

tive burdens on staff before changing such policies or

procedures, and to streamline reporting and recordkeeping

procedures; 3) modify the Department’s use of force and

vehicle pursuit policies, and establish a technology policy,

to allow ofcers to use body-worn cameras and drones

under certain circumstances; 4) limit new restrictions on

the Department’s use of technology unless approved by

the Board of Supervisors; 5) streamline the process for

the Department to install community safety cameras; and

6) permit the Department to use Surveillance Technology

for at least one year before the corresponding Surveillance

Technology Policy may be disapproved by the Board of

Supervisors.

NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodied text are in

plain font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics

Times New Roman font.

Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times

New Roman font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of

unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of

San Francisco:

Section 1. The Administrative Code is hereby amended by

adding Chapter 96I, consisting of Sections 96I.1, 96I.2, 96I.3, and

96I.4, to read as follows:

CHAPTER 96I:

POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

SEC. 96I.1. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STANDARDS.

(a) Community Engagement Process. Before agendizing any

proposal to establish, modify, or abolish policies or procedures related

to Police Department operations, the Police Commission shall rst

publish a notice regarding the proposal on its website. The Department

shall then have 90 days to hold community meetings to solicit public

feedback on any existing policies or procedures that may be affected,

115

38-EN-M24-CP115

Legal Text – Proposition E

with at least one community meeting at each district station. Each

community meeting shall have a neutral facilitator selected jointly by

the Chief of Police and the Commission President. The facilitator shall

chair the meetings, encourage dialogue between community members

and the Department and Commission, and post written summaries

online before any Commission meeting where any proposed change

will be considered. The purpose of this community engagement shall

be to describe the existing policies and procedures, solicit feedback

on their implementation and impacts, and identify possible changes,

rather than to consider specic draft proposals or to advocate for

particular positions or changes. The Commission may begin holding

public meetings on proposed changes only after the Commission

President and Chief of Police have consulted each other, at the close of

the 90-day community engagement period, on whether the community

meetings are complete. If either the Commission or the Department

convene a working group to consider a change to a policy or procedure,

they may do so only after the consultation described in the foregoing

sentence, and any working group should include subject matter experts,

community members with experience in the criminal justice system,

merchants, business owners, victims of crimes, and current or former

police ofcers.

(b) Waiver by the Chief of Police. This Section 96I.1 is intended

to help the Commission and Department receive public feedback

on whether proposed changes to policies and procedures governing

Department operations will impact the Department’s ability to efcient-

ly and effectively serve the community. The Chief of Police may waive

the requirements of this section 96I.1 based on whether the proposed

changes are unlikely to have a substantial impact on the Department’s

ability to serve the community, the amount of public feedback already

received on the subject matter, the need for immediate action, and such

other factors as the Chief may deem appropriate.

intended to impair any other notice requirements that may apply to the

Commission, such as the 10-day notice required under Charter Section

4.104(a).

SEC. 96I.2. IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFEC-

TIVENESS OF THE DEPARTMENT.

(a) Administrative Time. It is essential that the Commission and

Department maximize the time that ofcers can spend performing their

core law enforcement and crime prevention functions, as opposed to

administrative tasks. When adopting or revising policies governing the

conduct of ofcers, the Commission and Department shall endeavor to

minimize imposing administrative tasks on ofcers so that ofcers can

primarily focus their time and efforts on law enforcement and crime

prevention. It shall be City policy that patrol ofcers shall spend no

more than 20% of their on-duty time conducting administrative tasks,

except for tasks required by law, such as the completion of arrest reports

and the booking of arrestees and property, and except for training and

education.

(b) Recordkeeping and Reporting. To minimize redundancy and

administrative tasks with respect to recordkeeping and reporting, the

Commission and Department shall revise their existing policies and

procedures to reduce all recordkeeping and reporting requirements to

the extent allowed by law, and shall apply this rule to all future policies

and procedures. Further, ofcers shall be authorized to comply with re-

cordkeeping and reporting requirements through the use of technologies

such as body-worn cameras. This subsection (b) is intended to ensure

accurate reporting and recordkeeping, promote trust in the Department,

and maximize the ability of ofcers to focus their time and efforts on

law enforcement and crime prevention as opposed to administrative

tasks that remove ofcers from the eld.

safeguard the life, dignity, and liberty of all persons. Consistent with

this priority, in encounters with criminal suspects or others, it shall be

Department policy when feasible for ofcers to use rapport-building

communication, crisis intervention approaches, and de-escalation

tactics before they resort to using force. Ofcers shall be required to

provide a written report for uses of force only when (1) the use of force

resulted in a physical injury, including where the ofcer believes the

use of force is likely to have caused a physical injury or where a person

has complained of a physical injury; or (2) an ofcer removed a rearm

from a holster and pointed the rearm at a person or used it to compel

a person to comply. In all other instances involving a reportable use

of force, the ofcers shall satisfy these reporting requirements using

body-worn cameras, to the maximum extent possible, consistent with

subsection (b). The use of force policy shall also minimize duplicative

reporting by multiple ofcers regarding the same incident.

(d) Vehicle Pursuit Policy. An ofcer may engage in a vehicle

pursuit if the ofcer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a

felony or violent misdemeanor crime has occurred, is occurring, or is

about to occur. In evaluating whether to engage in a vehicle pursuit,

the ofcer must weigh the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood

that the pursuit will prevent the crime or lead to the apprehension of

a suspect against the potential dangers to the community and ofcers;

and to minimize the dangers from vehicle pursuits, ofcers shall be

authorized to use unassisted aerial vehicles (“UAVs,” also known as

“drones”) along with or in lieu of vehicle pursuits, consistent with

all applicable City policies on data and privacy and subsection (e).

The Department shall annually report to the Commission on the total

number of vehicle pursuits; the reason(s) for the pursuits; the number of

pursuits that resulted in a collision; the number of pursuits that resulted

in death or injury to an ofcer or member of the public; and the number

of pursuits that were found to be within or outside of policy.

(e) Technology Policy. The Department shall use technology to

the maximum extent possible to improve its efciency and effectiveness

in combatting crime, and to reduce dangers to the public, subject to the

City’s policies to protect privacy and civil liberties. Consistent with

these principles:

(1) ofcers shall be authorized to use technologies such

as body-worn cameras to comply with recordkeeping and reporting

requirements as set forth in subsections (b) and (c);

(2) the Department shall have the authority to use UAVs

along with or in lieu of vehicle pursuits as set forth in subsection (d),

and to assist with active criminal investigations; and

(3) the City may not adopt or impose any new restrictions on

the use of technology by the Department, unless such restrictions are

approved by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 96I.4;

provided, however, that the Department must use technology for

legitimate law enforcement purposes only, rather than for the purpose

of infringing on the lawful exercise of rights protected by the First

Amendment; must not retain any public footage for longer than 30

days unless a sworn member holding the rank of Captain or higher has

determined that a longer retention period is necessary due to an open

criminal investigation; and must not allow any Department staff to

access any public footage unless a sworn member holding the rank of

Captain or higher has determined that access is necessary for an open

criminal investigation; and provided further, that the Department’s use

of UAVs under this subsection (e) shall not be subject to the require-

ments of Chapter 19B of the Administrative Code.

SEC. 96I.3. IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) The Commission and Department may adopt policies and

procedures consistent with this Chapter 96I to implement this Chapter.

(b) This Chapter 96I shall override any conicting provisions

in ordinances, regardless of the effective date of any such ordinances.

This Chapter 96I shall also override any conicting provisions in

Department General Orders, regardless of the effective date of any

such orders, including without limitation Department General Orders

3.01 (Written Communication System), 5.01 (Use of Force), 5.03

(Investigative Detentions), 5.05 (Response and Pursuit Driving),

and 5.06 (Citation Release); provided, however, that (1) conicting

provisions of Department General Orders shall remain operative

until the Commission has revised them to comply with this Chapter,

or until October 1, 2024, whichever is sooner, and (2) the community

engagement process in Section 96I.1 will not be required with respect to

these implementing revisions to existing Department General Orders.

116

38-EN-M24-CP116

Legal Text – Proposition E

on any revisions to the policies and procedures within six months after

the revisions are adopted.

SEC. 96I.4. AMENDMENT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVI-

SORS.

Prior to January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors may by

ordinance amend this Chapter 96I by supermajority of at least eight

votes. Effective January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors may by

ordinance amend this Chapter 96I by majority vote.

Section 2. Chapter 19 of the Administrative Code is hereby

amended by revising the title of the Chapter, revising Sections

19.1 through 19.6, adding Sections 19.7 and 19.8, and by

revising and renumbering existing Section 19.7 as Section 19.9,

to read as follows:

CHAPTER 19:

PUBLICCOMMUNITY SAFETY CAMERA ORDINANCE

SEC. 19.1. SHORT TITLE.

This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the

PublicCommunity Safety Camera Ordinance.

SEC. 19.2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) PublicCommunity Safety Camera. For the purposes

of this Chapter, the term "publiccommunity safety camera" means

any digital recording surveillance system installed at xed

locations in an open and obvious manner by the City and County

of San Francisco to lm public streets, sidewalks, or common

areas of public housing complexes for the purpose of enhancing

public safety. It does not include surveillance cameras designed to

record the regular and ongoing operations of City departments,

including but not limited to mobile in-car video systems, jail

observation and monitoring systems, trafc reporting cameras,

and building security taping systems. In addition, it does not

include surveillance cameras installed for security purposes at

the San Francisco International Airport, the San Francisco Unied

School District or in San Francisco Municipal Railway facilities or

vehicles.

SEC. 19.3. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICCOMMUNITY

SAFETY CAMERAS.

The City and County of San Francisco may install pub-

liccommunity safety cameras for the purpose of enhancing public

security only in locations experiencing substantial crime and where the

potential to deter criminal activity outweighs any concerns asserted by

the affected community as determined by the Police Commissiononly in

locations where the Chief of Police has determined, following a public

meeting held in accordance with subsection 19.4(b) of this Chapter, that

installation would enhance public safety. The cameras shall record

areas perceptible to the human eye from public streets and

sidewalks only. Images obtained by the publiccommunity safety

cameras may be released only to the following:

(a) Sworn members of the San Francisco Police

Department holding the rank of Sergeant Inspector or higher. Police

shall limit review of images to investigation of specic crimes,

active operations, and crimes in progress. A sworn member holding the

rank of Captain or higher may approve live monitoring of these images/

camera feeds; and

* * * *

SEC. 19.4. APPROVAL AND AUDITING OF ADDITIONAL

PUBLICCOMMUNITY SAFETY CAMERAS.

(a) Recommendation for Camera Installation by Director.

The Chief of Police may install a public safety camera in an area if the

Chief of Police nds, after holding a community meeting as set forth

below, that installing the camera is likely to improve public safety in

that area. The Chief of Police may call a meeting to discuss installation

of a public safety camera on the Chief’s own initiative, or in response

to a request from a member of the public (including but not limited to

community and business organizations).If the Director of the Mayor's

Ofce of Criminal Justice ("MOCJ") nds that a particular location is

experiencing substantial crime and that the potential to deter criminal

activity outweighs any concerns asserted by the affected community, the

Director may recommend approval of a new community safety camera

in that location to the Police Commission. The Police Commission shall

calendar consideration of the matter no sooner than 30 days and no

later than 60 days from MOCJ's notication.

(b) Public MeetingHearing Required. A community meeting

shall be held in the neighborhood(s) being considered for a public

safety camera, prior to installation. The Chief of Police may require

the attendance of the affected neighborhood’s District Captain and/or

a sworn member of the Police Department holding the rank of Captain

or higher.The Police Commission shall conduct a public hearing

to determine whether or not to install the camera. The MOCJ shall

create and distribute to the Police Commission and the public a report

justifying the camera at the particular location 20 days prior to the rst

public hearing on the proposed installation. The report shall include,

for each proposed new camera location: (1) the reason for installing the

camera at the particular location, including crime statistics for the area

and (2) the proposed area/range to be covered. The Police Commission

may continue its consideration of the proposal for up to 30 days in

order to receive more information from the Director of the MOCJ, the

Police Department, or community organizations or to further consider

the proposal. The decision of the Police Commission shall be rendered

within 30 days from the date of the rst hearing.

Commission. After the community meeting(s) described in subsection

(b), the Chief of Police shall review a summary of community feedback,

including feedback provided at the community meeting, before making

a decision regarding the installation and/or placement of the public

safety camera. The Chief’s decision shall be based on public safety

considerations, including the nature and frequency of criminal activity

in the area and information provided by members of the impacted

community. The Department of Technology (“DT”) shall be responsible

for installing and maintaining any approved cameras. A camera instal-

lation approved by the Chief of Police under this subsection (c) is not

subject to the requirements of Chapter 19B of the Administrative Code.

The Police Commission may approve the camera's installation after a

hearing, provided that the Commission nds that the proposed location

is experiencing substantial crime, the potential to deter criminal activity

outweighs any concerns asserted by the affected community, and there

exists signicant support from the affected community for the camera.

(d) Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors and to

the Police Commission. The Police Department shall prepare

an annual report on all publiccommunity safety cameras that the

City has installed under this Chapter 19located in the City and County

of San Francisco. The report shall identify the camera locations,

the crime statistics for the vicinity surrounding each camera both

before and after the camera is installed, crime statistics from

surrounding vicinities, the number of times the Police Department

requested copies of the recorded images, the number of live

monitoring operations, and the number of times the images were

used to make an arrest bring criminal charges, the types of charges

brought, and the results of the charges. The Department shall issue

the rst reports during the rst quarter of each calendar year, starting

in 2025 no later than one year following the date of the rst camera

installation approval by the Police Commission and not less often than

once yearly thereafter. Based upon information provided in the annual

report, the Police Commission may direct the removal of any individual

camera(s).

SEC. 19.5. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Public Notice of Proposed Cameral Installation.

At least 3020 days before a public meeting to consider a public

safety camera at a new location, the Departmentthe Police Commission

considers a recommendation to install a new community safety camera,

the Department of Information and Telecommunications Services

("DTIS") shall post a minimum of four 4 signs, as set forth below,

within a 100-foot radius of the location at which the camera is

proposed. Signs shall remain posted through the date of approval or

disapproval of the camera installation by the Police Commission.

(1) Number of Signs. The Director of the MOCJ may approve

117

38-EN-M24-CP117

Legal Text – Proposition E

additional signs if deemed necessary to provide adequate notice to the

public.

(2) Contents and Size of Signs. Each sign shall be at

least thirty inches by thirty inches. The signs shall be entitled

NOTICE OF INTENT TO INSTALLAPPROVE A PUBLICCOMMU-

NITY SAFETY CAMERA(S) AT THIS LOCATION. The lettering of

the title shall be at least 1¼-inch capital letters. All other letters shall

be at least ¾-inch uppercase and ½-inch lowercase. Each sign and

shall include the time, and date, and location of the public meeting

regarding the camera installation, of the Police Commission's approval

hearing, a Police Commission contact person, and contact informa-

tion a telephone number where members of the public may obtain

additional information and/or submit comments. Signs shall be

posted in languages appropriate to the specic neighborhood,

and as required by the Language Access Ordinance, Chapter 91 of the

Administrative Codeas determined by the Director of the MOCJ.

(3) Production of Signs. The Director of the MOCJ shall

develop a standardized sign that meets the requirements of this Section.

(b) Additional Notice Provisions. In addition to the signposting

requirements in Section 19.5(a), the Director of the MOCJ may use

mailed notices. If the Director uses mailed notices, the Director shall

send notices to:

(1) The owner of each property within 300 feet of the

proposed camera location as reected on the latest Citywide Assessor

roll.

(2) Neighborhood associations and organizations listed

with the Planning Department as representing businesses, owners or

occupants located within 300 feet of the proposed camera location, and

(3) To the extent practicable, the occupants of each property

within 300 feet of the proposed camera location.

The mailed notice shall include, at a minimum, all of the in-

formation required in Section 19.5(a)(ii). Mailed notice shall be sent

at least 20 days prior to the Police Commission's consideration of

approval to install a community safety camera.

(b)(c) Notice for Approved Cameras. Upon approval by

the Chief of Police Commission and installation of a new publiccom-

munity safety camera, the DepartmentDirector of the DTIS shall post

a conspicuous sign within 25 feet of the location of the camera.

The sign shall statinge that the area is under camera surveillance,

unless the Chief of Police determines that the sign would reduce public

safety or undermine the effectiveness of the camera in enhancing public

safety. Additionally, the Police Department shall publish on the De-

partment's website the location of all cameras installed throughout the

City. The Department shall update the site within 30 days of each new

camera installation.

SEC. 19.6. PROTOCOLS FOR OVERSIGHT AND ACCESS

TO SURVEILLANCE INFORMATION.

(a) Access to the recorders for publiccommunity safety

cameras shall be limited to personnel from the DTIS for purposes

of installation, repair, maintenance and upgrades, and to

Custodian of Records staff from the Department of Emergency

Management ("DEM"). DEM staff shall be responsible for proper

release of the records.

* * * *

copies of the recordings or access to live-feeds by presenting a

written request to DEM. The request shall be submitted by a

sworn member of the Department holding the rank of Sergeant or

higheran Inspector of the SFPD, and approved by a Captain or

higher-ranking ofcerthe Deputy Chief of Inspectors. In exigent

circumstances only, DEM may release the recordings and/or

live-feed access to the Sergeant or higher-ranking ofcer information

to an Inspector prior to receipt of a written request, but in that

circumstance the requesting ofcer Inspector must then provide DEM

a written justication for the release, including specication of

the exigent circumstances, approved by a sworn member holding the

rank of Captain or higher, . Wwithin 7seven days from the release

under exigent circumstances, the SFPD Inspector must submit, in

writing, the supervisor's and captain's approval of the Inspector's initial

request.

(d) (2) The Public Defender, other criminal defense

attorney, or an investigator appointed by the Court to assist a

pro se criminal defendant may submit a written request to obtain

copies of the recordings to DEM. A copy of the request shall be

delivered concurrently to the Ofce of the District Attorney. The

request shall include the name and court number of the charged

criminal case, the time and place of the recordings, and a decla-

ration under penalty of perjury verifying that the request is made

in connection with the investigation or defense of a charged

criminal case and further declaring under penalty of perjury that

the attorney or investigator will use any publiccommunity safety

camera recordings released by DEM only in connection with the

charged criminal case. Upon receipt of the written request, DEM

shall preserve for 180 days any recordings requested and deliver

a copy of the recordings to the Ofce of the District Attorney.

The District Attorney may review the recordings with members

of the Police Department at the rank of SergeantInspector or

higher in determining whether to seek a Ccourt order preventing

disclosure. DEM shall deliver to the requesting individual a copy

of the recordings within ve 5 court days of the disclosure to

the District Attorney, unless the District Attorney applies for a

Ccourt order to prevent disclosure of the recordings pursuant to

existing law. If the District Attorney applies for a Ccourt order to

prevent disclosure, DEM shall not produce the recordings to the

requesting individual until the court issues a decision regarding

production.

(e)(d) DEM may only release records to agencies or

individuals other than those specied in section 19.3 pursuant to

a court order. DEM must notify the Board of Supervisors within

7seven days of any release pursuant to a court order.

(f)(e) Under no circumstances may recordings from public-

community safety cameras be used for personal purposes.

(g)(f) DTIS shall ensure that the publiccommunity safety

cameras retain data for a period of at least 30 days but not longer

than 30 days, unless the Department advises that a longer retention

period is required for an active investigation.

(h) DEM, through a written agreement, may delegate its

authority and responsibility under this Chapter 19 to DT or another

non-law enforcement department.

SEC 19.7 REMOVAL OF PUBLIC SAFETY CAMERA.

The Chief of Police, or the Board of Supervisors acting by

ordinance to override this Chapter 19 pursuant to Section 19.8, may

direct the removal of a public safety camera at a specic location.

SEC 19.8 AMENDMENT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

Prior to January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors may by

ordinance amend this Chapter 19 by supermajority of at least eight

votes. Effective January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors may by

ordinance amend this Chapter 19 by majority vote.

SEC. 19.79. SEVERABILITY.

If any part or provision of this Chapter 19, or the application

of this Chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid,

the remainder of this Chapter, including the application of such

part or provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not

be affected by such holding and shall continue in full force and

effect. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter are severable.

Section 3. Chapter 19B of the Administrative Code is hereby

amended by revising Section 19B.2, to read as follows:

SEC. 19B.2. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL OF

SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY POLICY.

* * * *

Supervisors approval by ordinance of a Surveillance Technology

Policy if the Department’s acquisition or use of the Surveillance

Technology complies with a Surveillance Technology Policy

previously approved by the Board by ordinance. Additionally,

118

38-EN-M24-CP118

Legal Text – Propositions E and F

(1) the Police Department may acquire and/or use a Surveillance

Technology so long as it submits a Surveillance Technology Policy to

the Board of Supervisors for approval by ordinance within one year

of the use or acquisition, and may continue to use that Surveillance

Technology after the end of that year unless the Board adopts an

ordinance that disapproves the Policy; and (2) this Chapter 19B shall

not apply to the Police Department’s use of public safety cameras

under Administrative Code Chapter 19, or unassisted aerial vehicles

(“UAVs,” also known as “drones”) under Administrative Code Chapter

96I, so long as Chapters 19 and 96I expressly exempt public safety

cameras and drones from this Chapter.

* * * *

Section 4. Scope of Ordinance. In enacting this ordinance,

the People of the City and County of San Francisco intend to

amend only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections,

sections, articles, numbers, punctuation marks, charts, diagrams,

or any other constituent parts of the Municipal Code that are

explicitly shown in this ordinance as additions or deletions, in

accordance with the “Note” that appears under the ofcial title of

the ordinance.

* * *

Proposition F

Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to require

recipients of aid under the County Adult Assistance Program

(CAAP) who are reasonably believed to be dependent on

illegal drugs to be screened for substance abuse, and to

participate in appropriate substance abuse treatment where

recommended by a professional evaluator; providing that

failure to comply with the drug screening, evaluation, and

treatment requirements without good cause will render

a recipient ineligible for assistance under the CAAP

program; allowing CAAP recipients who become ineligible

for assistance due to non-compliance with the screening,

evaluation, or treatment requirements to receive a housing

stipend or access to in-kind shelter for 30 days beyond the

discontinuance of their aid, with possible extensions as

necessary to prevent eviction; and establishing a special

fund to support the costs of the substance abuse screening

and treatment program, using savings realized from imple-

mentation of the program.

NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodied text are in

plain font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics

Times New Roman font.

Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times

New Roman font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of

unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of

San Francisco:

Section 1. Findings and Statement of Purpose.

(a) New, synthetic opioids like Fentanyl have hit

San Francisco – like cities across this country – hard. The

current drug epidemic is unlike anything the City has seen before.

In recent years, thousands of people overdose each year, and

hundreds of those who overdose die. In 2022, the Fentanyl crisis

took more than 700 lives in San Francisco, and as of October

2023 it was on track to take an even higher number of lives in

2023. The severity of this crisis calls for more tools to incentivize

people into treatment, rather than blindly following the status quo.

(b) San Francisco must explore every avenue to address

this overdose epidemic, including maximizing and streamlining

access to care, providing shelter and housing to those in need,

and disrupting the drug markets that fuel the epidemic. But

the City will not save lives or improve street conditions if the

substance use treatment that is offered is more often declined

than accepted. More must be done to reduce the number of

drug-related deaths occurring on our sidewalks and elsewhere

in the City every single day. The failed policies of simply offering

services to people who need treatment are not working.

chooses to access it, a myriad of service options. And the City

is constantly working to add more services. Service options

include:

(1) San Francisco has made signicant invest-

ments in voluntary treatment options, adding 350 behavioral

health beds in the past few years to the 2,200 health beds that

already existed. And there are 50 more beds that will be added

in the near future. In the last ve or six years, San Francisco

has nearly doubled its investment in its county behavioral health

system and its substance use disorder treatment system of care.

(2) The San Francisco Department of Public

Health at any one time serves approximately 25,000 people

with mental health and addiction issues, through residential and

outpatient services. In addition, street outreach teams connect

people to all of the City’s programs.

(3) The City serves at any one time more than

4,000 people with Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) by dis-

pensing medications like buprenorphine and methadone. Right

now, people who need treatment can access MAT the same day

they seek services from one of the City’s MAT programs.

(4) The City has mobile pharmacies that go to

shelters and permanent supportive housing. In addition, The City

employs workers to deliver medications directly to people who

are unhoused, so they can receive treatment and support no

matter where they are within the City’s boundaries.

(5) San Francisco has outpatient services at 14

medical clinics across the City, where people can get access to

treatment. This includes clinics like Maria X, which opened in

early 2023 with a focus on serving the South of Market Area.

Yet even with this large investment of public funds to provide

resources and help to those in need, the drug overdose epidemic

continues.

(d) This ordinance is intended to help address the overdose

epidemic by requiring individuals who receive assistance through

the City’s County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP), and who

have been professionally evaluated and determined to need

treatment, to participate in drug abuse treatment programs.

These treatment programs include numerous interventions

ranging from residential treatment, medical detox, and Medication

Assisted Treatment to outpatient options. There is no one

answer. Although reasonable participation in treatment programs

will be required, sobriety of participants will not be. What matters

is that people get into treatment and try to improve their lives.

Perfection isn’t the goal; improved health and life outcomes is.

(e) State law requires all counties in California to fund and

administer programs that provide aid and support to indigent

single adults. In San Francisco, this state requirement is met

through the CAAP program, which is administered by the City’s

Human Services Agency. In revising CAAP program eligibility

and program requirements, this ordinance does not impact the

benet eligibility of individuals other than single adults. Benet

eligibility for seniors and families is unchanged.

(f) The goals of the CAAP program are to provide

short-term nancial or in-kind assistance and other services to

City residents who are unable to support themselves; enable

and encourage participants to nd employment, if employable;

and reduce or eliminate the conditions that have led to indigency

and dependency. CAAP participants receive benet packages

that are intended to pay for or provide in-kind access to housing/

shelter, utilities, food, and other costs. As of 2023, CAAP partici-

pants who were housed received $712 per month. CAAP partici-

119

38-EN-M24-CP119

Legal Text – Proposition F

pants who were experiencing homelessness and who did not pay

rent received access to in-kind shelter and food through the City’s

shelter system, as well as a cash grant of up to $109 per month.

(g) State law expressly authorizes counties to require adult

recipients of general assistance benets to undergo screening

for substance abuse when it is determined by the county that

there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is

dependent upon illegal drugs. State law further authorizes

counties to require as a condition of aid reasonable participation

in substance abuse treatment programs for persons who are

professionally evaluated to need treatment, if the services are

actually available at no charge to the applicant or recipient.

(h) In amending the eligibility and program requirements

to include substance abuse screening and treatment for indi-

viduals with an identied drug use dependency, it is the primary

goal of the City to help individuals address their substance

use and to live healthier and more productive lives. By condi-

tioning the receipt of cash assistance on compliance with drug

screening and treatment requirements, this ordinance will create

an incentive for CAAP participants who have a substance use

disorder to engage in treatment and achieve self-sufciency.

Section 2. Article VII of Chapter 20 of the Administrative

Code is hereby amended by adding Section 20.7-26.5, to read as

follows:

SEC. 20.7-26.5. SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING,

EVALUATION, AND TREATMENT.

(a) Screening. The Department shall require all adult Recipients

of aid under the General Assistance, PAES, CALM, or SSIP Program

to undergo screening for substance abuse when it is determined by

the Department that there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an

individual is dependent upon illegal drugs. The Department shall

document all ndings of reasonable suspicion.

(b) Professional Evaluation. Where the screening process set

forth in subsection (a) indicates that there is reason to believe that a

Recipient is abusing or dependent on illegal drugs, such Recipient shall

undergo a professional evaluation for substance abuse. The profession-

al evaluation may be performed by the Department, the Department

of Public Health, or by an entity funded by the City to perform this

function, subject to the Charter’s restrictions regarding contracting for

personal services.

determined to need treatment for substance abuse shall be referred to a

treatment program determined to meet their rehabilitation needs, and

shall be required to participate in the treatment program upon referral,

provided the program services are actually available at the time of

referral and are at no charge to the individual.

(d) Violations. It shall be a violation of this Section 20.7-26.5

for a Recipient to fail to comply with the screening, evaluation, and/

or treatment requirements set forth in subsections (a), (b), and (c)

without good cause. Recipients whose aid is discontinued for violation

of this Section 20.7-26.5 shall continue to receive housing assistance

for 30 days from the effective date of the notice of discontinuance. For

purposes of this subsection (d), “housing assistance” means eligible,

veried rent expenses and guaranteed access to in-kind shelter and

meal services. The Department may extend an individual’s eligibility

for housing assistance beyond 30 days provided the Department nds

that such extension is necessary to prevent eviction.

(e) Rules and Regulations. Pursuant to Section 20.7-5, the

Executive Director may establish rules and regulations to administer

and enforce this Section 20.7-26.5, including but not limited to rules

and regulations to:

(1) establish categorical exemptions from screening,

evaluation, and treatment requirements relating to illegal drug use

where necessary or appropriate to prioritize the allocation of scarce

treatment resources and/or ensure that Recipients are not required to

participate in multiple activities at the same time; and

(2) establish standards governing determinations

relating to a Recipient’s need for an extension of housing assistance

beyond 30 days to prevent eviction.

(f) Amendments by the Board of Supervisors. This Section

20.7-26.5 may be amended by the Board of Supervisors by a superma-

jority vote of eight or more members.

Section 3. Article XIII of Chapter 10 of the Administrative

Code is hereby amended by adding Section 10.100-45.5, to read

as follows:

SEC. 10.100-45.5. CAAP TREATMENT FUND.

(a) Establishment and Use of Fund. The CAAP Treatment

Fund is established as a category two fund to support the costs of the

substance abuse screening, evaluation, and treatment program set forth

in Section 20.7-26.5 of Article VII of Chapter 20 of the Administrative

Code.

(b) Source of Fund. Savings that result from recipient noncom-

pliance with the requirements of Section 20.7-26.5 (Substance Abuse

Screening, Evaluation, and Treatment) shall be allocated to the CAAP

Treatment Fund.

fund and for making deposits thereto and expenditures therefrom shall

be approved by the Executive Director of the Human Services Agency,

or the Executive Director’s designee.

Section 4. Undertaking for the General Welfare.

In enacting and implementing this ordinance, the City is

assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. It is

not assuming, nor is it imposing on its ofcers and employees, an

obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any

person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury.

Section 5. Severability.

If any provision of this ordinance or any application thereof

to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall

not affect any provision or application of this ordinance that can

be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this

end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable.

Section 6. Conicts with Other Measures.

This ordinance is intended to establish requirements related

to the screening for and treatment of substance abuse by County

Adult Assistance Program recipients, and to address the pro-

grammatic consequences of noncompliance with those require-

ments. The ordinance shall be deemed to conict with any other

measure appearing on the same ballot if such other measure

addresses the screening for and treatment of substance abuse

by County Adult Assistance Program recipients, and the program-

matic consequences of noncompliance with those requirements.

In the event this ordinance and any other measure as described

above appearing on the same ballot are approved by the voters

at the same election, and this ordinance receives a greater

number of afrmative votes than the conicting measure, this

ordinance shall control in its entirety and the other measure shall

be rendered void and without any legal effect. If this ordinance

is approved by a majority of the voters but does not receive a

greater number of afrmative votes than any other conicting

measure, this ordinance shall take effect to the extent permitted

by law.

Section 7. Effective and Operative Dates.

(a) The effective date of this ordinance shall be ten days

after the date the ofcial vote count is declared by the Board of

Supervisors.

(b) This ordinance shall become operative on January 1,

2025.

* * *

120

38-EN-M24-CP120

Legal Text – Proposition G

Proposition G

Motion ordering submitted to the voters at an election to

be held on March 5, 2024, a Declaration of Policy urging

the San Francisco Unied School District (SFUSD) to offer

Algebra 1 to students by the eighth grade, and supporting

the SFUSD in its efforts to develop its math curriculum for

students at all grade levels.

MOVED, That the Board of Supervisors hereby submits the

following declaration of policy to the voters of the City and County

of San Francisco, at an election to be held on March 5, 2024.

Declaration of Policy declaring it the ofcial policy of the

City and County of San Francisco to urge the San Francisco

Unied School District (SFUSD) to offer Algebra 1 to

students by the eighth grade, and to support the SFUSD in

its efforts to develop its math curriculum for students at all

grade levels.

The People of the City and County of San Francisco hereby

declare:

It shall be the ofcial policy of the City and County of

San Francisco to urge the San Francisco Unied School District

(SFUSD) to offer Algebra 1 to students by the eighth grade.

It shall also be the ofcial policy of the City and County of

San Francisco to support the SFUSD in:

• developing a coherent math curriculum for elementary and

middle school students rooted in educational excellence;

• ensuring that math instruction is student-centered so

that students who are struggling get the help they need,

and students who are ready for more, can explore their

potential;

• building a rst-rate math curriculum and instruction team

that is committed to serving students in a challenging,

engaging, student-centered, culturally-responsive, and

differentiated way;

• providing a range of educational options to ensure that

elementary and middle school students have access to

courses that would qualify them for science, technology,

engineering, and math majors at colleges in the University

of California and California State University systems;

• promoting targeted approaches to math education and

career guidance for girls to address the historic under-

representation of women in certain science, technology,

engineering, and math elds;

• providing support and guidance to educators so they may

be successful in their efforts to encourage and support

students’ desire to learn algebra; and

• meaningfully addressing the California Legislature’s

ndings in the California Mathematics Placement Act

of 2015 (SB 359), that 1) all pupils, regardless of race,

ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic background, deserve

an equal chance to advance in mathematics; 2) with the

shift towards implementation of the Common Core State

Standards for Mathematics, it is particularly important

for all pupils to have access to high-quality mathematics

programs that meet the goals and expectations of these

standards; and 3) it is crucial for educators and guidance

personnel to advise pupils and parents on the importance

of accurate mathematics course placement and its impact

on future college eligibility so pupils may take each course

in the mathematics course sequence.

Voting Rights for People

with a Criminal History and

Those Currently in Local

Detention Facilities

California law allows people with a criminal history to register

and vote. Being in any of the following situations will not impact

a person’s right to vote:

• In a local detention facility (jail):

Serving a misdemeanor sentence (a misdemeanor

never aects a person’s right to vote)

As a condition of probation

Serving a felony jail sentence

Awaiting trial

• On parole or probation

• On mandatory supervision

• On post-release community supervision

• On federal supervised release

• Having a juvenile wardship adjudication

If a person is currently serving a felony prison term, they can

If someone you know has a criminal history or is detained in a

local jail and has questions about registration and voting, we

can help! Call the Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375

or email sfvote@sfgov.org.

122

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP122

Information About Prohibited Election Activities

Warning: Electioneering prohibited!

Violations can lead to nes and/or imprisonment.

The following activities are prohibited within the immediate vicinity of a person

in line to cast their ballot or within 100 feet of the entrance of a polling place,

curbside voting or drop box:

• DO NOT ask a person to vote for or against any candidate or ballot measure.

• DO NOT display a candidate’s name, image, or logo.

• DO NOT block access to or loiter near any ballot drop boxes.

• DO NOT provide any material or audible information for or against any candidate or

ballot measure near any polling place, vote center, or ballot drop box.

• DO NOT circulate any petitions, including for initiatives, referenda, recall, or candidate

nominations.

• DO NOT distribute, display, or wear any clothing (hats, shirts, signs, buttons, stickers)

that include a candidate’s name, image, logo, and/or support or oppose any candidate or

ballot measure.

• DO NOT display information or speak to a voter about the voter’s eligibility to vote.

The electioneering prohibitions summarized above are set forth in Article 7 of Chapter 4 of Division 18 of the

California Elections Code.

123

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP123

Warning: Corrupting the voting process is prohibited!

Violations can lead to nes and/or imprisonment.

The following activities are prohibited:

• DO NOT commit or attempt to commit

election fraud.

• DO NOT provide any sort of compensation

or bribery to, in any fashion or by any means

induce or attempt to induce, a person to vote

or refrain from voting.

• DO NOT illegally vote.

• DO NOT attempt to vote or aid another to vote

when not entitled to vote.

• DO NOT engage in electioneering;

photograph or record a voter entering or

exiting a polling place; or obstruct ingress,

egress, or parking.

• DO NOT challenge a person’s right to vote or

prevent voters from voting; delay the process

of voting; or fraudulently advise any person

that he or she is not eligible to vote or is not

registered to vote.

• DO NOT attempt to ascertain how a voter

voted their ballot.

• DO NOT possess or arrange for someone to

possess a rearm in the immediate vicinity of

a polling place, with some exceptions.

• DO NOT appear or arrange for someone

to appear in the uniform of a peace ofcer,

guard, or security personnel in the immediate

vicinity of a polling place, with some

exceptions.

• DO NOT tamper or interfere with any

component of a voting system.

• DO NOT forge, counterfeit, or tamper with the

returns of an election.

• DO NOT alter the returns of an election.

• DO NOT tamper with, destroy, or alter any

polling list, ofcial ballot, or ballot container.

• DO NOT display any unofcial ballot

collection container that may deceive a voter

into believing it is an ofcial collection box.

• DO NOT tamper or interfere with copy of the

results of votes cast.

• DO NOT coerce or deceive a person who

cannot read or an elder into voting for or

against a candidate or measure contrary to

their intent.

• DO NOT act as an election ofcer when you

are not one.

EMPLOYERS cannot require or ask their employee to bring their vote by mail ballot to work or ask

their employee to vote their ballot at work. At the time of payment of salary or wages, employers

cannot enclose materials that attempt to inuence the political opinions or actions of their employee.

PRECINCT BOARD MEMBERS cannot attempt to determine how a voter voted their ballot or, if that

information is discovered, disclose how a voter voted their ballot.

The prohibitions on activity related to corruption of the voting process summarized above are set forth in Chapter 6 of

Division 18 of the California Elections Code.

Unable to travel to

the polls?

In the hospital or a

health care facility?

Need help returning

your ballot?

If you or someone you know is unable

to leave their home or hospitalized and

needs help with voting, the Department of

Elections can provide personalized ballot

delivery and/or pick-up service. To request

this service, please call (415) 554-4375

or email ballotdelivery@sfgov.org.

Make the switch to the digital

Voter Information Pamphlet!

We oer this Voter Information Pamphlet & Sample Ballot in digital and hard copy

formats. By law, we must mail a paper Pamphlet to every voter unless they make

the switch to the digital copy.

To save trees and city funds, consider opting out of postal delivery of your

Pamphlet for future elections!

paperless!

If the Department of Elections learns of any substantial errors on our part after this pamphlet has been mailed, we will publish a correction in the

Public Notices section of the San Francisco Examiner on February 21 and 22.

Prior to the publication of the Voter Information Pamphlet, any voter has the right under California Elections Code Sections 9295 and 13314 to seek a writ of mandate

or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials submitted for publication in the Pamphlet to be amended or deleted.

Index

Accessible voting resources ...............................12

Address of your polling place..................... (back cover)

Ballot drop-off boxes, map and locations .................10–11

Ballot Simplification Committee..............................3

Ballot Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

Burmese-language voter assistance

ျမန္မာဘာသာျဖင့္ မ

ဲ

ေပးသူအတြက္ အကူအည ............14

California Presidential Primaries .............................4

Candidate information .....................................16

Candidate statements of qualifications

Candidates for United States Representative .................18

Candidates for State Senator ...............................23

Candidates for State Assembly .............................24

Candidates for Judge of Superior Court, Seat 1 ...............26

Candidates for Judge of Superior Court, Seat 13 ..............27

Chinese-language voter assistance

中文選民服務 .........................................14

Contact the Department of Elections .........(inside back cover)

Dates, important ...........................(inside front cover)

Debt Overview............................................34

Early voting .............................................8–9

Elections Commission ......................................3

Filipino-language voter assistance

Tulong para sa botante sa wikang Filipino..................14

Frequently asked questions (FAQs) .......................28–30

Japanese-language voter assistance

日本語による投票支援 .................................14

Korean-language voter assistance

유권자를 위한 한국어 지원 ..............................15

Legal text of local ballot measures .........................100

Letter from the Director.....................................2

Local ballot measure and argument information ..............33

Local ballot measures

A Affordable Housing Bonds ............................36

B Police Officer Staffing Levels Conditioned on

Amending Existing or Future Tax Funding ...............48

C Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption and Office

Space Allocation.....................................56

D Changes to Local Ethics Laws .........................68

E Police Department Policies and Procedures.............72

F Illegal Substance Dependence Screening and

Treatment for Recipients of City Public Assistance .......84

G Offering Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders ...................92

Marking your ballot ......................................5–6

Mistake while voting, how to get a new ballot ...............5–6

Multilingual voter services .................................14

Official local and state voter guides ..........................3

Online voter assistance tools ................(inside back cover)

Party endorsements .......................................17

Polling place, confirm location.................... (back cover)

Purpose of the Voter Information Pamphlet ...................3

Spanish-language voter assistance

Asistencia en español para los electores ..................14

Thai-language voter assistance

ความช

่

วยเหลือเป็นภาษาไทยแก่ผู้ลงคะแนนเสียง .............15

Vietnamese-language voter assistance

Dịch vụ/tài liệu hỗ trợ cử tri bằng tiếng Việt .................15

Voter Bill of Rights .........................................7

Voting by mail .............................................8

Voting in person ...........................................9

Voting instructions .......................................4–6

Voting system .............................................9

Website of the Department of Elections............ (back cover)

Words you need to know ..................................31

Write-in candidates, how to vote for .......................5–6

127

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP127

March 5, 2024 Ballot Worksheet

You can use this worksheet to organize your choices before marking your official ballot cards. To do so:

1. Refer to your sample ballot included in this Pamphlet or at sfelections.org/voterportal.

• If you registered with a preference for a political party, your sample ballot will list that party’s

presidential candidates.

• If you registered with no party preference, refer to one of the sample ballots that matches contests

on your official ballot.

2. You can read about the candidates and measures listed on your ballot in this Pamphlet and the

State Voter Information Guide.

• Beginning February 23, you can see all qualified write-in candidates for this election at

sfelections.org/writein.

3. As you finish researching each contest, use the relevant blank space below to note your choice(s).

4. When you are done, carefully copy your choices from this worksheet onto your official ballot cards.

If you make a mistake marking your official ballot, you may request a replacement by visiting

sfelections.org/voterportal, calling the Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375, or asking a poll worker

or Voting Center representative.

PARTY-NOMINATED OFFICES

FEDERAL (Vote for One)

President of the United States

(Party Ballots Only)

CITY AND COUNTY (See ballot card)

Members, County Central Committee

(Democratic and Republican Party Ballots Only)

VOTER-NOMINATED OFFICES

FEDERAL AND STATE (Vote for One)

United States Senator (Term Ending Jan 2031)

United States Senator (Term Ending Jan 2025)

United States Representative (District 11 or 15)

State Senator (District 11)

State Assembly Member (District 17 or 19)

NONPARTISAN OFFICES

JUDICIAL (Vote for One)

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat 1

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat 13

(The ballot worksheet continues on the next page)

✂

128

General Information

38-EN-M24-CP128

MEASURES

STATE PROPOSITION YES NO

Authorizes $6.38 billion in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities for those with

mental health and substance use challenges; provides housing for the homeless.

CITY AND COUNTY PROPOSITIONS YES NO

Affordable Housing Bonds

Police Officer Staffing Levels Conditioned on Amending Existing or Future Tax Funding

Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption and Office Space Allocation

Changes to Local Ethics Laws

Police Department Policies and Procedures

Illegal Substance Dependence Screening and Treatment for Recipients of

City Public Assistance

Offering Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders

(Ballot worksheet, continued)

on social

media

Follow the Department of Elections

for all the latest election updates!

@sfelections

Contact one of our

multilingual sta members

or visit our oce!

Phone:

English: (415) 554-4375

TTY: (415) 554-4386

Español: (415) 554-4366

中文: (415) 554-4367

Filipino: (415) 554-4310

Mail:

Department of Elections

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

City Hall, Room 48

San Francisco, CA 94102

Email:

sfvote@sfgov.org

registertovote.ca.gov

Get a customized voting plan:

sfelections.org/voteready

Track your ballot or request a replacement:

sfelections.org/voterportal

wheresmyballot.sos.ca.gov

Find a convenient ballot drop box location:

sfelections.org/ballotdropo

Conrm your assigned polling place location:

sfelections.org/myvotinglocation

View preliminary and nal election results:

sfelections.org/results

We also have many helpful online tools!

Have questions? Need help?

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS

City and County of San Francisco

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

City Hall, Room 48

San Francisco, CA 94102-4608

Telephone: (415) 554-4375

TTY: (415) 554-4386

sfelections.org

NONPROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

PERMIT NO. 2750

ELECTRONIC SERVICE REQUESTED

Through February 28, you can use this postage-paid postcard to request a mailed ballot with the

presidential candidates of the American Independent, Democratic, or Libertarian parties. You can

still request your preferred ballot after that date, but must do so in-person at the City Hall Voting

Center or your polling place. (See page 6 for a full explanation of your options.)

I have declined to disclose a preference for a qualied political party. However, for the March 5, 2024,

Presidential Primary Election only, I request a vote-by-mail ballot of the (choose one):

American Independent Party Democratic Party Libertarian Party

Full name: Date of birth:

Address:

Today’s date:

SIGN HERE

Notice: If the person above is not at this address, please help keep the voter rolls

current and save city funds by returning this pamphlet to your mail carrier.

Request for a Ballot with Presidential Candidates

(only for voters registered with no party preference)

Are the entryway and voting area of your polling place accessible?

Mailing Address:

Your voting precinct and districts are:

Your polling place is located at: