LWV League of Women Voters of California
Smart Voter
San Francisco County, CA March 5, 2002 Election
Proposition D
Appointment of Planning Commission & Board of Appeals
City of San Francisco
Charter Amendment - Majority Vote Required

11,040 / 55.52% Yes votes ...... 8,845 / 44.48% No votes

See Also: Index of all Propositions
Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Yes/No Meaning | Arguments |

Shall the City change the way members of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals are appointed and removed?

Summary Prepared by San Francisco Department of Elections Voters Information Pamphlet:
THE WAY IT IS NOW: The City has a Planning Commission which makes decisions about development and use of land. The Mayor appoints all seven of its members.

The City also has a Board of Appeals. Members of the public may appeal a City decision about zoning, a permit, or a license by asking the Board of Appeals to review the decision. The Mayor appoints all five of its members.

After the Mayor appoints a member of the Planning Commission or Board of Appeals, the Board of Supervisors has 30 days to reject the appointment. It may reject an appointment only by a two-thirds vote.

Members of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals serve four-year terms. The Mayor may remove them at any time for any reason.

THE PROPOSAL: Proposition D is a Charter amendment that would change the way members of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals are appointed and removed.

The Mayor would nominate four members of the Planning Commission and the President of the Board of Supervisors would nominate the other three members. The Mayor would nominate three members of the Board of Appeals and the President of the Board of Supervisors would nominate the other two members. The Board of Supervisors would be required to conduct a public hearing within 60 days to approve or reject the nominees. The Board of Supervisors could reject an appointment by a majority vote.

Members of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals would serve four-year terms and could be removed only for official misconduct.

How Supervisors Voted on "D" On November 19, 2001 the Board of Supervisors voted 9 to 2 to place Proposition D on the ballot.

The Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Hall, Leno, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Peskin, Sandoval

No: Newsom, Yee

Fiscal Impact:
Controller's Statement on "D" City Controller Edward Harrington has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition D: Should the proposed charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, there would be no significant increase in the cost of government.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No
A YES vote of this measure means:
If you vote yes, you want to change the way members of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals are appointed and removed.

A NO vote of this measure means:
If you vote no, you do not want to make these changes.

   Nonpartisan Information

League of Women Voters of San Francisco

News and Analysis

San Francisco Chronicle

General Links

No on D - information and endorsements.
From No on D Committee.
Suggest a link related to Proposition D
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Proposition D Arguments Against Proposition D
When development is put in the hands of lobbyists, special interests and political appointees, our city suffers. Neighborhoods and communities are damaged. Small business-es are displaced. Historic treasures are destroyed. Over time, as San Francisco loses its character, our economic lifeblood # tourism # is threatened. Proposition D restores balance and accountability to local development decisions. By democratizing appointments to the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals, Proposition D gives citizens, neighborhoods and communities more meaning-ful participation in shaping the future of San Francisco. Proposition D will make the appointment process for members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals more open and accountable. It will continue to allow the Mayor to have a majority of the appointments to these bodies, but will share a minority of the seats with the legislative branch of gov-ernment. All seats will be subject to public confirmation process at the Board of Supervisors to ensure that appointees are qualified and that neighborhood interests get representation in land use decisions. Once appointed, commissioners will be protected from political pressure to favor developers by allowing dismissal of appointees only in cases of misconduct. Time and time again, San Franciscans have watched in horror

as lobbyists, developers and campaign contributors are given unchecked power over neighbors and citizens. The power to make crucial land use decisions should not remain in the hands of the few. Please join the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, representing over 32 San Francisco neighborhood organizations, in restoring balance and accountability to city government.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick Supervisor Tom Ammiano Supervisor Chris Daly Supervisor Matt Gonzalez Supervisor Tony Hall Supervisor Mark Leno Supervisor Sophie Maxwell Supervisor Aaron Peskin Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval

How Supervisors Voted to Submit this Argument The Supervisors voted as follows on December 17, 2001:

Yes: Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Hall, Leno, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Peskin, Sandoval

No: Newsom, Yee

Rebuttal to Arguments For
San Francisco's Board of Supervisors already has veto power over appointments to the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals. It also has the power to appeal decisions made by the Planning Commission. But that's not enough for the current Board, which wants to grab complete control over both bodies. If the board gets its way, it will be bad news for San Francisco and everyone who lives or works here. San Francisco needs more affordable housing. This measure's proponents have blocked and obstructed such development at every turn. Giving the Board of Supervisors monopoly power over planning policy will only make our housing shortage even worse. It's also bad for our neighborhoods. Homeowners, people running small businesses, local contractors and other workers will be the hardest hit by obstruction. When residents in our neighborhoods can't get projects approved to fix up their homes and their rental properties, all of us will hurt. Our City Charter is intended to weather the storms of the times, not be up for grabs by either the legislative or executive branch when they are at extreme odds. The Charter is intended to protect the citizens who live here, not politicians with an agenda. Vote NO on D.

Small Property Owners of San Francisco

Changes to a government's Charter should be made when the Charter is outdated or no longer effective, never to address short-term political problems. Prop D is a reaction to a particular Mayor's development policies. If you don't like the policies, get rid of the Mayor, not our City's Charter. Administrative functions of government belong to the Mayor, not the legislative branch. Efficient and effective leadership of daily operations of the government of San Francisco necessitate the structure of mayoral appointments to the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals. Our City's Charter protects its citizens from many types

of political power struggles between any Board of Supervisors and our Mayors. There must be a clear distinction between the administrative and legislative duties of our City's government, and it must be kept in balance in order to work for us, the citizens of the City. The Charter should never be manipulated to throw this power out of balance. Proposition D is bad government at its worst, and one that ignores the very citizens it says it intends to protect.

Small Property Owners of San Francisco

Rebuttal to Arguments Against
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION D AND GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOODS A VOICE IN PLANNING DECISIONS. For 20 years, developers have controlled the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals. The voice of our neighbor-hoods has been ignored. We now have a Planning Commission that refuses to plan and a Board of Appeals that favors develop-ers by flouting the law. As a result, our City has a glut of luxury live-work lofts, with virtually no affordable, family housing being built. This is a structural imbalance in the charter, not a short-term problem particular to this mayor. We must redress this imbalance by reforming the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals to make them more democratic and respon-sive to the needs of our neighborhoods. Appointments to these bodies should be shared by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals are primarily adjudicative bodies, not admin-istrative agencies. Appointees resolve challenges by neighbors to Planning staff decisions. No mayor should have total control over both the Planning Department and the appellate bodies

that review that agency's decisions. Shared appointments to these judicial bodies will maintain checks and balances within City government. Checks and balances exist in State commission appointments. One third of appointments to the Coastal Commission are made by the governor, one third by the Assembly, and one third by the Senate. As a result, both environmentalists and developers are represented, and everyone gets a chance to be heard.

Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

How Supervisors Voted to Submit this Argument Supervisor McGoldrick submitted this rebuttal argument on behalf of the Board of Supervisors.

On December 17, 2001, the Supervisors voted as follows to authorize Supervisor McGoldrick to prepare and submit the rebuttal argument on their behalf.

Yes: Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Hall, Leno, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Newsom, Peskin, Sandoval, Yee

San Francisco Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: April 19, 2002 10:59 PDT
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://ca.lwv.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.