How Did San Francisco’s Political Leadership Handle 2020? A Quick Glance At The Data

In 2020, San Francisco came face-to-face with twin pandemics, COVID-19 and anti-Black structural racism--on top of an already accelerating climate emergency. As happy as I am to see the calendar turning to 2021, these crises are far from over. We have begun vaccinations for COVID-19, but the degree to which the virus is here to stay will be largely determined by politics. Anti-Black structural racism has been a festering part of our government and culture from before the inception of this country, and climate change will only compound in the coming months, years and decades if we don’t act quickly to drastically reduce our collective carbon emissions.

In other words, these are all political choices. So, how did San Francisco’s main political body, the Board of Supervisors, respond to 2020? Was it enough, and was it the direction we needed to meet these challenges in 2021 and beyond? I’ve done a quick and dirty analysis of the Board of Supervisors’ actions over the past two years, and added some context and other resources that can help ordinary voters like me understand what’s happening at City Hall (and what’s not). This analysis is not meant to be exhaustive nor free from my own biases of interpretation, though I’ve tried to be as upfront as possible about my assumptions.

A quick primer before I dive in, for people who don’t track city politics. There are five basic legislative products a Supervisor can generate: hearings, ordinances, resolutions, motions and charter amendments. You can see the city’s definitions of these actions here, but the key thing to know is that resolutions are non-binding policy statements to express approval or disapproval of an issue (e.g., Supervisor Mandelman’s “Resolution declaring October 4, 2020, through October 10, 2020, as the Fifth Annual San Francisco Transit Week in the City and County of San Francisco.”), hearings are for discussion-based oversight of city work on a particular issue and motions are things Supervisors say during Board meetings to commit to an action, e.g., force a vote or send items to committee for discussion. These three items are all important and useful legislative tools, but it is only ordinances and charter amendments that actually constitute the law of the city. Ordinances are like bills in the US Congress and charter amendments are the equivalent of changing the city’s constitution (called a charter here); voters get a say in the latter.

Finally, I also want to acknowledge that one of the Board of Supervisors’ biggest jobs is editing and adopting the city budget. A more robust analysis of the Board’s work in 2020 would include a look at the city’s new budget, but that is beyond what I can/am willing to do at the present moment. Sorry--my older kid keeps challenging me to lightsaber duels. That said, I’ll talk more about the budget at the end of this post.


Key Findings

  • In 2020, over half of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ 481 successful activities was passing non-binding resolutions.

  • Despite the crises of 2020, only about a quarter of the Board’s of these 481 actions took the form of passing ordinances and charter amendments, aka, actually writing law. And among that:

    • Only 8% addressed the ravages of COVID-19.

    • Just 2% dismantled anti-Blackness in the city.

    • Less than 1% addressed the climate crisis.

  • The issues that attracted the most concrete lawmaking were Workers, followed by Small Business and Public Health.

  • The crises of 2020 had no impact on the overall successful quantity of output of the Board of Supervisors compared to 2019.


Methodology

I downloaded the legislative records of each of our 11 supervisors from their websites* for items successfully passed in 2020 (for hearings, this means that they’re marked as “filed”). Link is here. My pull date was just after Christmas, so there may have been items that were approved in the last few days of the year that I missed, though those shouldn't make a substantial difference to my analysis. I did not include items that Supervisors began in 2020 but did not see through to completion nor ones that were killed or withdrawn during the legislative process. Effort and intention is important, but at the end of the day, voters need to know what our elected leaders actually accomplished.



*Note: The link to Dean Preston’s legislative activity is currently missing from his 

website but can be found directly through Legistar.



I chose to focus only on items on which the Supervisor served as the primary author. While it’s absolutely true that we want our elected officials to work together on joint legislation, we also need to know what they individually bring to the table. That said, San Francisco government is set up to push off a great deal of governance onto commissions and departments, with varying degrees of Board of Supervisors oversight. Board members sit on a variety of other voting bodies, e.g., the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Their votes on those bodies and all the behind-the-scenes work of informal oversight of individual agencies are not reflected in the data I captured.

Finally, I also downloaded and analyzed 2019 data for a point of comparison. Note that there is no 2019 data available for Supervisor Preston (D5) because he was not yet a member of the Board of Supervisors.

Activity Breakdown & Performance

While quantity is not necessarily better than quantity when it comes to legislative activity, it does reveal a fair amount, particularly in a year of crises.

Observations

  • The Board of Supervisors successfully passed 481 legislative actions in 2020. 
  • Of those, about half were resolutions (52%). 
  • Supervisor Peskin (D3) was the undisputed champion of passing ordinances, both in 2019 and 2020, though his rate of production fell dramatically in 2020. 
  • Supervisor Fewer (D1) wielded hearings like no other in 2020, using them primarily to discuss and influence department budgets and the overall city budget.
  • Supervisor Yee (D7) produced the largest number of legislative actions (82). However, this is likely in part because he was President of the Board, which means that his numbers are inflated by the business of running the body. Case in point, 43% of his activity were motions.
  • Supervisor Safai (D11) produced by far the fewest successful legislative actions, at a mere 16, which is a small decrease for him from 2019. Supervisor Preston (D5) had the next lowest number at 30.
  • Roughly half of the Supervisors generated more legislative activity in 2020, and roughly half generated less.







BY ACTIONHighest VolumeLowest Volume
HearingFewer (28)Safai (1)
OrdinancePeskin (25)Safai (2)
ResolutionHaney (31)Safai (13)
MotionYee (35)Mar, Safai, Stefani (0)
Charter AmendmentYee (3)Fewer, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani (0)




You can see more details about specific supervisors’ legislative activity in this spreadsheet, arranged by district.

By Issue

Okay, here’s where we start to get a little fuzzier. In order to compare successful actions across Supervisors, I categorized each action by issue. You can see the key I used to decide on the primary issue here. Generally speaking, I read through the legislation when available and tried to decide who or what it primarily served or regulated. For example, I categorized Supervisor Fewer’s “Hearing on the necessary closure of County Jail No. 4 as part of the closure of the Hall of Justice, and the strategies needed to successfully and safely close the jail through reduction of the population in order to avoid sending inmates to out-of-county facilities; and requesting the Sheriff's Department, Office of the District Attorney, Public Defender, Police Department, Adult Probation Department, and the Department of Public Health to report” under "The Incarcerated" because the discussion is intended to improve the lives of incarcerated people. You may disagree with my choices.

Unsurprisingly, each supervisors’ primary topics of action align with their district constituencies and committee membership.

Observations

  • The Board of Supervisors collectively spent the most successful legislative activity on Human Rights (13%). An example of this is Supervisor Walton's "Resolution condemning the increase of racial profiling and discrimination harassment from private businesses and individuals who profile people of color for suspicion of crime or denial of service based on the individual’s race, age, ethnicity, language, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, and national origin."
  • Once you remove non-binding actions, a different picture emerges. The real top issues of concern for the Board of Supervisors, aka, ones that garnered binding lawmaking, were:
    • Workers (4%)
    • Small Business (3%)
    • Public Health (3%)
    • Renters (2%)
    • Housing (2%)
      • An example of a Public Health ordinance is Supervisor Haney's "Ordinance amending the Health Code to require the Medical Examiner to report information to the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and Director of Health once every four months regarding deaths arising from drug overdoses."
  • Most Supervisors gravitated towards a narrow set of issues, or one main issue. Supervisor Ronen (D9) had the most dispersed/diverse set of activity across issues.
BY ISSUEHighest Volume (Ordinances & Charter Amendments)Highest Volume (All Actions)
AdministrationHaney, Peskin (2)Yee (7)
AirportMar (1)
AnimalsRonen (1)
Anti-PovertyHaney (1)Haney (3)
ArtsPeskin (2)Peskin (4)
BankingFewer (1)
BusinessHaney (5)Haney (8)
CensusFewer, Ronen (1)
Children, Youth & FamiliesYee (5)
City BudgetYee (1)Fewer (9)
Constituent ServicesStefani (3)
ElectionsRonen (1)Yee (7)
EmergencyMar, Ronen (1)
EnvironmentMandelman (2)Mandelman (4)
HousingYee (5)Yee (10)
Human RightsRonen (2)Walton (14)
Multiple (COVID-19 relief)Yee (20)
NonprofitsFewer, Ronen (1)Fewer, Ronen (2)
ParksPeskin, Stefani (1)
PolicingMar, Peskin, Stefani, Safai, Walton (1)Fewer (6)
PortPeskin (1)
Property OwnersPeskin, Preston, Safai (1)Preston, Safai, Yee (2)
Public DefenderHaney (1)
Public HealthPeskin (4)Haney (7)
Public WorksWalton (2)Fewer (4)
RentersPeskin (5)Preston (6)
SeniorsMar, Preston, Ronen, Walton, Yee (1)
Small BusinessPeskin (7)Peskin (15)
TechnologyFewer, Peskin (1)
The IncarceratedFewer (4)Fewer (10)
The UnhousedHaney (3)Haney (7)
TransportationRonen, Yee (1)Walton (4)
WorkersMar (8)Mar (11)
**14 of the Supervisors' ordinances were re-enactments of previously approved emergency ordinances. Peskin: Public Health (2), Renters (2). Mar: Workers (5). Haney: The Unhoused (1), Workers (3). Ronen: Workers (1)


By Crisis

And here’s where we get even fuzzier. I took the categorization one step further and noted whether an item substantially and directly impacted COVID-19 relief, reduced anti-Black structural racism and/or reduced the rate and impact of climate change. I did my best to categorize accurately, but there are some inherent challenges. For example, while building more affordable housing in San Francisco will help stave off climate change and make its impacts more equitable, it’s often impossible to tell whether specific legislative actions on specific housing projects qualify as net positive, direct action on the climate, or the opposite. Our planning code and development processes are not intended to be easy to follow. For this reason, I’ve been as generous as possible with my categorization.

Observations

  • A little over half of the Board of Supervisors' 481 successful legislative actions in 2020 addressed the three crises. 
  • Unsurprisingly, the Board prioritized legislative activity around COVID-19.
    • COVID-19 legislation was 31% of all successful legislative actions, and 8% of binding lawmaking activity.
  • The Board was not anywhere near as strong on undoing anti-Blackness, and performed dismally on climate change, even when I include resolutions, hearings and motions. 
    • 11% addressed anti-Black structural racism
    • 2% addressed the climate crisis
  • Those numbers expand significantly for anti-Blackness work if I include items that might help undo structural racism if applied deliberately, aka, the “maybe” category (34% total). For example, Supervisor Stefani's "Hearing on the use and impacts of San Francisco's Paid Parental Leave program, implemented January 1, 2019; and requesting the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement to report."
  • The numbers remain paltry for climate change legislation even when I include the “maybe” category (6% total). 
  • However, and most importantly, when I drill down even deeper to just ordinances and charter amendments, only eight out of 479 legislative activities were laws intended to undo structural anti-Blackness, and only three were actions to stave off the climate crisis.
    • 2% addressed anti-Black structural racism
    • Less than 1% addressed the climate crises, and only one of these three actions were introduced in 2020.
    • Kudos to Supervisors Walton and Mandelman for producing the majority, respectively, of these laws.




BY CRISISHighest Volume of "Yes - Ordinance & Charter Amendment" Actions
COVID-19Peskin (12)
Anti-BlacknessWalton (4)
Climate CrisisMandelman (2)
**14 of the COVID-19 ordinances were re-enactments of previously approved emergency ordinances. Peskin (4), Mar (5), Haney (4), Ronen (1)


The Actual Legislation

Below are the ordinances and charter amendments that the Board of Supervisors passed to address COVID-19, anti-Blackness and/or the climate crisis in 2020. I also encourage you to take a look at the San Francisco Youth Commission’s priorities for the city budget. These youth see so clearly--could we be doing more to act upon their insights?

COVID-19

Ordinances

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to require the City to close County Jail No. 4, located on the seventh floor of the Hall of Justice, by November 1, 2020; to require the Sentencing Commission to establish a Safety and Justice Challenge Subcommittee to plan for the reduction of the City’s daily jail population and closure of County Jail No. 4; and affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act. Fewer (D1).

  • Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 170-19, the Annual Salary Ordinance FYs 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, to add active military service related to the COVID-19 pandemic to the enumerated events that qualify for supplementation of military pay. Stefani (D2).

  • Ordinance amending the Health Code to establish cleaning and disease prevention standards and practices in tourist hotels and large commercial office buildings to help contain COVID-19, or other contagious public health threats; to require training related to these standards for employees, provide certain protections to employees as they perform cleaning duties, and prohibit retaliation against employees for refusing to perform work under conditions they believe may be unsafe or for reporting such conditions or exercising rights protected by the Ordinance; authorizing the Office of Labor [...]. Peskin (D3).

  • Emergency ordinance to temporarily prohibit construction projects in buildings with any residential rental units that require the suspension of water or utility service to residential tenants without providing alternative sources of water and power, or reaching agreement with tenants, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peskin (D3).

  • Emergency ordinance to establish protections for occupants of residential hotels (“SRO Residents”) during the COVID-19 pandemic by, among other things: making it City policy to place in solitary hotel rooms SRO residents who meet the criteria for isolation or quarantine established by the County Health Officer, and requiring the Department of Public Health to develop a protocol to assist health care providers to identify SRO Residents who may require protection against or treatment for COVID-19; notify the operator of a residential hotel when an SRO Resident has tested positive for COVID-19 to. Peskin (D3).

  • Emergency ordinance to temporarily prohibit rent increases that would otherwise be permitted under the Administrative Code, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peskin (D3).

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to prohibit landlords of residential hotel units (SROs) from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent that was not paid due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and from imposing late fees, penalties, or similar charges on such tenants; to establish a COVID-19 SRO Relief Fund to cover such rent payments; and making findings as required by the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Peskin (D3).

  • Ordinance waiving, for a two-year period, permit and renewal fees in the Public Works Code for café tables and chairs in public sidewalks and roadway areas, and for display of fruits and vegetables or nonfood merchandise on public sidewalks; and waiving fees for use of parklets. Peskin (D3).

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to temporarily restrict landlords from evicting commercial tenants for non-payment of rent that was not paid due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peskin (D3).

  • Emergency ordinance to establish cleaning and disease prevention standards in tourist hotels and large commercial office buildings to help contain COVID-19; to require training related to these standards for employees on paid time and to provide certain protections to employees as they perform cleaning duties; to prohibit retaliation against employees for refusing to perform work under conditions they believe may be unsafe or for reporting such conditions or exercising rights protected by the ordinance; and providing for administrative enforcement by the Department of Public Health and financi. Peskin (D3).

  • Emergency ordinance to temporarily require private employers with 500 or more employees to provide public health emergency leave during the public health emergency related to COVID-19. Mar (D4).

  • Emergency Ordinance temporarily creating a right to reemployment for certain employees laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic if their employer seeks to fill the same position previously held by a laid-off worker, or a substantially similar position, as defined. Mar (D4).

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to establish the COVID-19 Rent Resolution and Relief Fund, to provide financial support to landlords whose tenants have been unable to pay rent due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Preston (D5).

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to prohibit landlords from evicting residential tenants for non-payment of rent that was not paid due to the COVID-pandemic; to prohibit landlords from imposing late fees, penalties, or similar charges on such tenants; and making findings as required by the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Preston (D5).

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to limit residential evictions through March 31, 2021, unless the eviction is based on the non-payment of rent or is necessary due to violence-related issues or health and safety issues. Preston (D5).

  • Emergency ordinance to limit the spread of COVID-19 by requiring the City, through service agreements with third parties, to provide, staff, and maintain restrooms equipped with toilets and hand washing facilities, at a ratio of one restroom per 50 unsheltered people, concentrated in areas with the greatest need, located within 1,000 feet of any encampment, and for select “pit stop” restrooms, open 24 hours per day, within three weeks of the effective date of this ordinance; waive the requirement under Charter, Section 9.118, that the Board of Supervisors approve the service agreements for [...]. Haney (D6).

  • Emergency ordinance to prohibit the City from requiring people experiencing homelessness currently housed in approximately 2,000 Shelter-in-Place (“SIP”) Hotel rooms to move from those rooms until the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) provides written notification that FEMA funding available for SIP Hotel rooms is terminated or not extended or modified in a way that no longer reimburses any costs of these rooms, or people experiencing homelessness housed in SIP Hotel rooms obtain a stable housing placement; for every ten SIP Hotel rooms vacated, six SIP Hotel rooms shall be [...]. Haney (D6).

  • Emergency ordinance to temporarily require grocery store, drug store, restaurant, and on-demand delivery service employers to provide health and scheduling protections to employees during the public health emergency related to COVID-19. Haney (D6).

  • Emergency ordinance to require the City to secure 8,250 private rooms by April 26, 2020, through service agreements with hotels and motels for use as temporary quarantine facilities for people currently experiencing homelessness, people released from local hospitals with COVID-19 exposure or infection, and front-line workers in the COVID-19 crisis; waive the requirement under Charter, Section 9.118, that the Board of Supervisors approve the service agreements for private rooms; require daily reporting to the Board of Supervisors on the City’s progress in procuring and providing the needed room. Ronen (D9).

  • Ordinance authorizing the Port Commission to amend certain leases under the Port’s Rent Forgiveness Program with nonresidential tenants without Board of Supervisors approval under Charter, Section 9.118, and waiving Administrative Code and Environment Code requirements enacted after the most recent modification of each lease for lease amendments under the Port’s Rent Forgiveness Program, in order to allow for expeditious rent forgiveness necessitated by Port tenants’ financial hardships caused by the public health emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ronen (D9).

  • Ordinance amending the Municipal Elections Code to require the Department of Elections to expand use of vote-by-mail ballots at the November 3, 2020, Consolidated General Election; to report to the Board of Supervisors regarding planning for that election; and to report to the Board regarding implementation of the Voter’s Choice Act in future San Francisco elections. Ronen (D9).

  • Ordinance amending the Planning Code to allow Arts Activities, and Social Service or Philanthropic Facilities, and COVID-19 Recovery Activities as a temporary use in vacant ground-floor commercial space; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and general welfare under Planning Code, Section 302. Ronen (D9).

  • Emergency ordinance to temporarily protect workers from adverse action if they test positive for COVID-19, are isolating or quarantining, or have previously isolated or quarantined, due to COVID-19 symptoms or exposure; and to protect applicants from discrimination if they test positive for COVID-19, are isolating or quarantining, or have previously isolated or quarantined, due to COVID-19 symptoms or exposure. Ronen (D9).

  • Ordinance amending the Building Code to extend for the time for existing buildings with a place of public accommodation to comply with the requirement to have all primary entries and paths of travel into the building accessible to persons with disabilities or to receive a City determination of equivalent facilitation, technical infeasibility, or unreasonable hardship, to extend the period for granting extensions from those deadlines, and to extend the time for the Department of Building Inspection’s Report to the Board of Supervisors. Yee (D7).

  • Ordinance authorizing the Port Commission to amend certain leases under the Port’s Rent Forgiveness Program with nonresidential tenants without Board of Supervisors approval under Charter, Section 9.118, and waiving Administrative Code and Environment Code requirements enacted after the most recent modification of each lease for lease amendments under the Port’s Rent Forgiveness Program, in order to allow for expeditious rent forgiveness necessitated by Port tenants’ financial hardships caused by the public health emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ronen (D9).

  • Ordinance amending the Planning Code to allow Arts Activities, and Social Service or Philanthropic Facilities, and COVID-19 Recovery Activities as a temporary use in vacant ground-floor commercial space; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and general welfare under Planning Code, Section 302. Ronen (D9).

  • Emergency ordinance to require the City to secure 8,250 private rooms by April 26, 2020, through service agreements with hotels and motels for use as temporary quarantine facilities for people currently experiencing homelessness, people released from local hospitals with COVID-19 exposure or infection, and front-line workers in the COVID-19 crisis; waive the requirement under Charter, Section 9.118, that the Board of Supervisors approve the service agreements for private rooms; require daily reporting to the Board of Supervisors on the City’s progress in procuring and providing the needed room. Ronen (D9).

  • Emergency ordinance to temporarily protect workers from adverse action if they test positive for COVID-19, are isolating or quarantining, or have previously isolated or quarantined, due to COVID-19 symptoms or exposure; and to protect applicants from discrimination if they test positive for COVID-19, are isolating or quarantining, or have previously isolated or quarantined, due to COVID-19 symptoms or exposure. Ronen (D9). (KH note: This emergency, time-bound ordinance was re-enacted.)


Anti-Blackness

Ordinances

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to require the City to close County Jail No. 4, located on the seventh floor of the Hall of Justice, by November 1, 2020; to require the Sentencing Commission to establish a Safety and Justice Challenge Subcommittee to plan for the reduction of the City’s daily jail population and closure of County Jail No. 4; and affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act. Fewer (D1).

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to prohibit the City from entering into an agreement to provide goods or services to incarcerated persons of a jail facility that allows the City to collect some or all of the revenue paid for those goods or services. Fewer (D1).
  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to require the Police Department to regularly report certain crime victim data pertaining to victims of Hate Crimes and other specified crimes (Assault, Aggravated Assault, Child and Elder Abuse, Sexual Assault, First and Second Degree Burglary, Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, Robbery, Battery, Vandalism, Domestic Violence, Manslaughter, and Murder). Mar (D4).
  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to adopt rent increase limitations for dwelling units at Midtown Park Apartments, a residential development owned by the City and County of San Francisco; and expanding the Rent Board fee to cover those dwelling units. Preston (D5).
  • Ordinance amending the Health Code to authorize the Director of the Department of Public Health to allow an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary permittee to operate under that permit at a new location, provided the permittee has been verified by the Office of Cannabis as an Equity Applicant under the Police Code, the permittee, if a natural person, or a natural person who is a verified Equity Applicant, was identified as an applicant or as a person who would be “engaged in the management of the medical cannabis dispensary,” on the original Article 33 permit application submitted on or before [...]. Haney (D6).
  • Ordinance amending the Police Code to make it unlawful to cause a peace officer to contact a person with the specific intent to discriminate against the person on the basis of the person’s race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, national origin, place of birth, sex, age, religion, creed, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, weight, or height; and creating a civil cause of action and providing for damages for violating the prohibition. Walton (D10).

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to establish the African American Reparations Advisory Committee to advise the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, the Human Rights Commission, and the public regarding the development, adoption, and implementation of a San Francisco Reparations Plan that determines the scope and eligibility for a citywide reparations program, examines current structural discrimination within San Francisco, and proposes institutional reforms to guard against the need for future redress. Walton (D10).

  • Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to modify the number and qualifications of members of the African American Arts and Cultural District Community Advisory Committee; to extend the sunset date of the Committee to January 2023; and to extend to July 2021 the deadlines for the written reports and recommendations from City departments describing the cultural attributes of the District and proposing strategies to acknowledge and preserve the cultural legacy of the District. Walton (D10).

  • Charter Amendment (Third Draft) to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to create the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board to advise and report findings and recommendations to the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors regarding Sheriff’s Department operations; to create the Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General, under the direction of an Inspector General appointed by the Oversight Board, to investigate complaints of non-criminal misconduct by employees and contractors of the Sheriff’s Department and in-custody deaths, develop policy recommendations for the [...]. Walton (D10).


Climate Crisis

Ordinances

  • Ordinance amending the Environment Code to require new construction and major renovations of municipal buildings to exclude natural gas and include exclusively all-electric energy sources; and affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act. Stefani (D2).

  • Ordinance amending the Green Building Code to establish energy performance requirements for certain new building construction; adopting environmental findings, and findings of local conditions under the California Health and Safety Code and the California Public Resources Code; and directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to forward the Ordinance to state agencies as required by state law. Mandelman (D8).

  • Ordinance amending the Building Code to require new construction to utilize only electric power; amending the Environment Code to provide public hearings on implementation of all-electric requirements; adopting findings of local conditions under the California Health and Safety Code; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to forward this Ordinance to the California Building Standards Commission upon final passage. Mandelman (D8).


The Budget

Operating Budget

As I said earlier, a huge portion of the Board of Supervisors’ work is embodied in a single piece of legislation: the two-year city operating budget. The Board of Supervisors receives a proposed operating budget from the mayor every two years (and an update every year that reconciles budget actuals with budget projections from the two-year process) as well as budget priorities, and gets to try to make alterations to suit their own priorities. This was a budget year, and these were Mayor Breed’s budget priorities:

  1. Balancing the budget responsibly during times of economic uncertainty.
  2. Continuing to make progress on shared priorities of homelessness and behavioral health.
  3. Prioritizing racial equity in the allocation of resources.
  4. Maintain a robust and data-driven response to the ongoing health pandemic.

To get a full picture of what’s really happening with our city government, you have to read the budget. Budgets are, after all, moral documents.

So, did I read the entire city budget to do an analysis? Not this year, sorry. I can, however, share the document with you. I also encourage you to take a look at the city’s five-year capital budgetone of the city's best kept secrets. Whereas your best bet for influencing the operating budget is engaging directly with your Supervisor, the capital budget is created by these people, and the monthly-ish meetings are open to the public. Here’s an example of a question I have for that committee:

Why does the capital budget have $748,972 set aside for upgrading the city’s golfing facilities as a “critical improvement” when there are so many other truly critical needs in the city right now, like refurbishing/building more supportive housing, retrofitting public schools buildings ventilation systems (yes, this is a separate governmental structure, but doesn’t mean the city can’t pitch in given the crisis), etc? By comparison, this capital budget calls for spending $500,000 on planning for climate change planning. Are these truly the city’s priorities?




Final Thoughts

This quick and dirty analysis is no way intended as a gotcha or an attack on any elected leaders. Quite the contrary. I want our entire government to succeed. My family and I need them to succeed, just like you. So I am genuinely rooting for this Board, and Mayor Breed, to bring their absolute best to the table in 2021. I hope that some data-driven self-reflection can help everyone rise/continue to rise to the occasion, because the occasion, as we all know, is deeply serious. And, for better or worse, it’s going to be political decisions that determine who survives the three crises that define all of our day-to-day lives going forward. Any loss is a world of tragedy.

Health to you and yours in 2021.