Inner Sunset Neighborhood San Francisco

The following information is based on documents and facts that neighbors should be aware of in considering a GBD. Italicized sentences are from actual documents being reviewed.

In this section, we are going to go through the documentation and acts that allow for the formation of “Improvement and Maintenance Assessment Districts (Green Benefit Districts)”. The purpose is to inform neighbors about “Green Benefit Districts” so they can make a good decision for themselves. The rosy view of the proposed “Inner Sunset GBD” can be found here: http://www.innersunsetgbd.org/ The information here will be information that cannot be found on promoters of GBD websites.

There is a lot of information below, so highlighted in red the things people should really read and understand.

Content

Build Public

ARTICLE 15A_ PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (_GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS_)

• Assessment Districts changed to Green Benefit Districts Marketing
• Petition signature requirement reduced from 50% to 30% by proposed GBD assessment
• GBD services cannot supplant city services
• Public Realm Definition
• Petition 30% property owner signature weighted by proposed assessment
• Board of Supervisors authorize utilization of GBD assessments
• "but are not limited to" and "water and energy systems"
• Board of Supervisors can buy property
• Allows for the Recovery of a GBD Formation Cost
• Disestablishment of GBD by majority vote of the Board of Supervisors
• Disestablishment for allowed if GBD assessments back bonds or similar obligations
• Allows Board of Supervisors to issue bonds or similar obligations
• Allows for a GBD to be taken over by another GBD and GBD expansion
• GBD board requires over 50% be property owners
• Requires representation on a GBD board of tenants
• Allows for change of GBD management between GBD and City
• This subsection (j) shall not limit the authority of the Board of Supervisors
• GBD formation requires public hearings and Board of Supervisor approval
• Protects the whole of Article 15A if part is found to be invalid
• Acquisition of property, GBD assessments can only be used for half property value
• Article 15A Summary / Cliffs Notes

INNER SUNSET GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICT DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN

• GBD improvements must be beyond city services
• GBD boundaries determined by extensive public engagement
• GBD improvements and Article 15A misrepresented
• Change of GBD Management Plan
• Inner Sunset GBD survey results
• Vote weighted by property owner's proposed assessment
• Inner Sunset GBD Advocacy and Promotion
• ISGBD Management and Operations
• Unused assessment carry-forward rules
• Formation Cost recovery
• Bond Issuance
• Collaboration with Institution in Golden Gate Park Commercial Benefit District
• Missing Appendix A and C
• Inner Sunset Green Benefit District Term of Operation
• ISGBD Disestablishment Requirements
• Formation Committee becomes ISGDB interim Board of Directors, writes Bylaws
• Composition of ISGBD Board of Directors
• Property Owners must be over 50% of the ISGBD Board
• ISGBD Board candidates vetting
• Property Owner vote for ISGBD Board
• ISGBD Foundation member quoted on expansion plan of ISGBD in future
• Liens on Low-Income Individuals
• Proposed Projects of the Inner Sunset Green Benefit District
• Sidewalk, Landscaping, Trees, and Greenery
• Wayfinding Signs, Pedestrian Amenities
• Public art & Murals
• Connections between Parks, Open Spaces, and the Neighborhood
• Neighborhood Zone Services
• Renters/Tenants
• Other promises or supposed things that the ISGBD would tackle

Alternative to Green Benefit Districts

Calculate Your Inner Sunset GBD Assessment

Petition on Inner Sunset GBD

Sample Letters for Board of Supervisors No on GBD

Inner Sunset Community Links

Inner Sunset Action Community Website (ISAC)
Inner-Sunset Park Neighbors (ISPN)
SF Neighborhoods
Sunset Heights Association of Responsible People (SHARP)

★Build Public

Build Public is a non-profit that has been contracted out to give support to Green Benefit Districts (GBD) Formation Committees in San Francisco. The contracts are district by district and financing is in the form of grants. Part of the money can be paid back to the city if a GBD is formed.

Build Public has a registered DBA (“Doing Business As”) called Place Lab. D.b.a. in California is called "fictitious business name". A DBA allows a company to legally operate under a trade name, also known as an "assumed" or "fictitious" name. It is unclear why Place Lab exists other than to confuse or hide. Most likely, the use of Place Lab is to make it harder to draw a direct line to Build Inc. It is basically a website that is very similar to Build Public but with a different name. So far all contracts and funding for GBDs go to Build Public and not Place Lab. Place Lab is the name that Build Public wants people to use. People should use Build Public instead of Place Lab.

Build Public was started by Michael Yarne, of Build Inc. http://bldsf.com/ “BUILD is a San Francisco multifamily residential developer that approaches each project as a holistic venture to foster thriving places.“ Michael Yarne has said he wants to be the Uber of urban spaces, i.e. privatize and co-op and disrupt. (2014, the "GBD = Uber of Public Space", comment, straight from the horse's mouth) https://dirt.asla.org/2014/09/26/brilliant-idea-the-green-benefits-district/

In 2018, PlaceLabs and Michael Yarne have moved to SF Parks Alliance
https://www.sfparksalliance.org/sites/default/files/2018_SFPA_Impact_report.pdf
Shows PlaceLabs Brooke Ray Rivera, and Julia Ayeni
and Michael Yarne on the board as Secretary; Innovation Committee Chair

Michael Yarne currently is in trouble for trying to steal land assigned to a community center in order to fulfill his low-cost housing responsibility he incurred in gentrifying the Dogpatch. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-officials-clash-with-Bayview-residents-over-12778263.php

Other info, 2017, massive apartment complex, Yarne complains about parking spaces being cut? http://www.sfexaminer.com/proposal-cuts-oak-parking-half/ He is separating his profit center (building luxury apartments) by creating "fun spaces" (to support these buildings and make them desirable) from formerly public land and with parcel assessment payments through Build Public and GBDs.

Build Public sees the Inner Sunset Green Benefit District as a possibility of getting big donations by inflating the costs of the ISGBD formation. In Inner Sunset Green Benefit District: Donor Information, Prepared by Build Public, August 2017. It gives a fairly detailed budget for ISGBD formation at a cost of $ 216,350.00 To help cover this formation expenditure, it has gotten grants from the city/supervisor of about $70,000 - $84,250* and the document outlines getting $168,002.00 in donations from large property owners in the proposed ISGBD. In the main part of the document and in the Appendix B letter to ask large property owners, it states that the donation is considered a refundable contribution if the ISGBD is formed. In the draft Management Plan the cap for reimbursement of donations for successful formation of the ISGBD is $50,000. There are going to be some disappointed people and organizations if they expect their money back. On page 4 of the document, it says Build Public has received $11,400 from the Inner Sunset GBD Formation Committee, even though this seems noted further in the document of donations received as coming from the Academy of Science, who does have a representative on the Formation Committee.

From the Appendix B letter “and as such, I/we have the option to be reimbursed by the GBD for the original donation amount after successful GBD formation, or to request that the reimbursement is converted into a permanent tax-deductible donation to Build Public on behalf of the GBD.” Looks like Build Public will get a donation of everything not spent and above the $50,000 ISGBD draft Management Plan limit.

The plantings were paid for through the Green Benefit Districts program started five years ago by developer Michael Yarne of Build Inc., which recently completed O&M Dogpatch, a 116-unit development at 650 Indiana St. The program levies a voluntary tax on developers and uses the money to improve and maintain public open spaces throughout the neighborhood. So far every developer has agreed to pay into the district, which has smoothed the approval process.

“It’s a beautifully proportionate relationship,” Yarne said. “The capacity of the Green Benefit Districts to do good work grows precisely in unison with the number of new units and new people.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Dogpatch-SF-s-latest-boomtown-neighborhood-12315940.php

Are Green Benefit Districts really grassroots?

Other Build Public documents:
San Francisco City and Build Public First Grant Agreement for the formation of the Inner Sunset Green Benefit District
San Francisco City and Build Public First Grant Receipt for the formation of the Inner Sunset Green Benefit District
Inner Sunset Merchant Association and Build Public Agreement Feasibility Phase Inner Sunset Green Benefit District

Inner Sunset Green Benefit District: Donor Information, Prepared by Build Public, August 2017

San Francisco City Public Works 2017 Fall Grant Funding for Proposed GBDs: Inner Sunset GBD est. $50K, Buena Vista GBD est. $20K, Bayview GBD est. $25K, Marina GBD est. $15K, Sunnyside GBD est $20K

Back to Table of Contents        To the Next Red Must Read

ARTICLE 15A_ PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (_GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS_)

The full text of this document can be found here on the San Francisco City Government website:
http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances14/o0014-14.pdf
Ordinance 14 is an ordinance that amended and changed Article 15A.

A local stored PDF of it is here: ARTICLE 15A_ PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (_GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS_)

This article does not contain the full text of the Article 15A, but cites clauses that voters should know about.

Note that the actual title of districts is “Improvement and Maintenance Assessment Districts”. “Green Benefit Districts” is in parenthesis and is a marketing name that emphasizes “Benefit” instead of “Assessment”.

Under Purpose, Page 1.

This allows the Board of Supervisors to reduce the percentage of signatures of property owners required to initiate formation of a GBD (covered further below). It has been reduced to “who will pay at least 30 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied.” The original requirement of 50% was not getting enough support so that a GBD could be initialized.

Under Purpose, page 2.

This section says that a GBD cannot “levy any assessment under this Article to replace or supplant existing City services”. The problem is that there is no document that says what constitutes the existing city services. There is no delineation between where city services stop and what are additional services, activities and improvements that a GBD can provide. There is one document dated 2015 from the Dogpatch and NW Petero Hill GBD that contains baseline cleaning and maintenance services provided by Park and Recreation and Department of Public Works for that GBD. The 2015 Dogpatch and NW Petero Hill GBD Baseline City Cleaning and Maintenance pdf

Under Definitions, page 2.


This is an important definition because it is in the Article Title and core to where a GBD can operate. It is open-ended which is good and bad. Note the language “but are limited to”. Here it is OK but this language is used further down in financing. Note the last sentence is very broad and includes “owned by public private entities or persons”. That can cover just about anything.

To the Next Red Must Read


If there are large property owners and corporate owners (apartment buildings) in a proposed green benefit district that are for a GBD, they can get the petition close to or on the ballot. It is not the number of people who sign the petition; it is how much property people own. A few people have more power. This actually happens all the time. Wealthier people can get a petition for a vote easier than your average person or homeowner. Is it democratic? This weight by wealth plays a bigger anti-democratic role in the actual vote.

Under Property Zoned Solely Residential, page 3.

Gives the Board of Supervisors the right to authorize utilization of assessments from a GBD regardless of a GBD board’s vote for utilization of the assessments. There is no language that says the Board of Supervisors must follow a GBD board’s recommendation. The funds raised by an assessment must be used in the GBD district, as stated elsewhere in Article 15A.

Under Property Zoned Solely Residential, page 3.

Note in the last sentence “but are not limited to” leaves the services and improvements open-ended and not limited to the list. Also, note “water and energy systems”. Funding for improvements, expansion, and maintenance to water and energy systems can be from bonds or assessments in a GBD. If SB827 becomes law a massive rezoning bill that allows for the development of 8 story apartment buildings along public transit routes, this act allows for the funding of the water and energy system and “not limited to” upgrades in a “Public Realm” needed to support increased development. SB827 is covered further on this webpage. As previously mentioned, one thing that is not defined is where the city’s Department of Public Works responsibilities stop and the responsibilities of a GBD begin.

Back to Table of Contents      To the Next Red Must Read


The Board of Supervisors can buy property for the Public Realm area and the GBD will be required to “provide landscaping, improvements and/or maintenance of the area.” Remember the definition of Public Realm in this Article.

Under Formation Cost Recovery, page 3.


To keep things shorter text is left out, but basically this provision allows for the recovery of all cost to form a GBD to come from the assessment of a GBD. Both the Dog Patch and proposed Inner Sunset GBDs got grants from the city for formation. The proposed Greater Buena Vista GBD is trying to raise funding for formation costs. It does seem that failure for a GBD to form leaves no recovery.

page 4.


A supermajority not a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors is required to disestablish a GBD making it harder to disestablish a GBD. The next clause supersedes this clause if a “bond, financing lease (including any certificates of participation therein), or other similar obligations of the City, payable from or secured by assessments levied within the district.”


Back to Table of Contents

Under Public Financing, page 4.



These clauses allow the Board of Supervisors to issue “bond, financing lease (including any certificates of participation therein), or other similar obligations of the City” to pay for some or all of the improvements or activities in a GBD but not greater than the revenues raised by the assessment of a district over a term.

Under Management of District, page 4.



In a GBD Management, this clause allows the Board of Supervisors to contract an existing owners’ nonprofit corporation. This can mean that GBD can be combined with another GBD or expanded. Remember that the Board of Supervisors has to approve a GBD Management Plan. Also further down in Article 15A, “shall not limit the authority of the Board of Supervisors to require the incorporation of any other item or matter into the management district plan under California Streets and Highways Code Section 36622(l) or other applicable law.” They can add language to a GBD Management Plan.



This is interesting in that although only property owners have the right to vote a GBD into existence, once it is established they can have just a slight majority and people without any ownership have voting power.

Back to Table of Contents       To the Next Red Must Read



This requires representation of stakeholders who do not have any ownership interest in the district. In the ISGBD Management Plan, there is a provision for specialists to be on the board. They appear to be non-elected and do not have to live in the GBD. There are no provisions in Article 15A as to how people are placed on the GBD board so that must appear in the management plan.



Allows for a change of management during the term of a GBD. Probably will be in every GBD Management Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors.



This allows the Board of Supervisors to change a GBD Management Plan. It is a very important clause to note. It is unclear how the Board of Supervisors decides and votes on changes to a GBD Management Plan.

Under Notice to Businesses in Three Languages, page 5.



Requires public hearings and a vote by owners of property subject to the assessment. No tenants can vote, though they do gain rights once a GBD is established.


This is an added clause, which protects the whole of Article 15A in case a part is found invalid. Only the clause(s) found invalid will be removed from the Article.


This states that a GBD can be charged up to one-half of any acquisition of property for public use. Some people will argue that this is a leverage for combining GBD assessment money with other money from a developer or city or any other entity, but it can also be seen as the GBD being liable for up to half of the purchase of land for public use in a GBD boundary.

Back to Table of Contents

Summary

Article 15A allows for the creation of “Improvement and Maintenance Assessment Districts” also known under the marketing name of Green Benefit Districts. The petition for initializing the vote for a GBD requires that 30% of property owners proportionally weighted by how much they will be accessed vote to put the GBD to a ballot. A small number of large property owners can have a big effect on the passing of a petition. This article does not cover the balloting process for a GBD.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisor has to approve a GBD Management Plan. The Board of Supervisors can require the incorporation of any other item or matter into the management district plan. The Board of Supervisors can contract an existing owners’ non-profit corporation to administer a GBD. A GBD management can change back and forth from city to an owner’s non-profit corporation. The disestablishment of GBD before the end of a GBD’s term requires a supermajority. A GBD’s maximum term is 15 years under state law unless a GBD’s assessments pay for a bond or loan, then the maximum term is 40 years, or such later date as the Board of Supervisors shall determine.

The Board of Supervisors can “declare that any bond, financing lease (including any certificates of participation therein), or other similar obligations of the City, shall be issued to finance the estimated costs of some or all of the proposed improvements or activities” and “bond, financing lease (including any certificates of participation therein) or other similar obligations, may not exceed the estimated total of (A) revenues to be raised from the assessments over the term of the district, plus (B) such other monies, if any, to be available for such purpose, in each case determined as of the date such obligations are issued or incurred.” Property for the purpose of the Public Realm can be purchased with half of the money coming from a GBD.

Public Realm is defined in Article 15A, as what people would think of as a Public Realm but “is not limited to” that list. “Public Realm areas may be owned by public and/or private entities or persons.”

A GBD can provide services, improvements and activities which may include, but are not limited to, involvement with ecological systems, water and energy systems, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and recreational improvements. While not limited to the list above they cannot provide services, improvements and activities that the city provides.

Even though a GBD can only be elected into existence by property owners in a district, the board is required to be a mix of renters, property owners, and other stakeholders. This apparently opens the door to people who do not live or own property in the district or specialists to be on the board.

Back to Table of Contents

INNER SUNSET GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICT DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Neither the Board of Supervisors nor the City Attorney has approved this draft plan.

ARTICLE 15A_ PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (_GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS_) supersedes GBD Management Plans. The Formation Committee did not prepare most of the Management Plan. The Formation Committee sees the GBD as a way to improve the quality of life in the Inner Sunset by providing additional services and improvements beyond the services and improvements provided by the city, increasing community engagement and a greater political voice for services from the city. They want to maintain a vibrant village atmosphere.

Under What is a GBD? page 9.



This is true that a GBD can only pay for things beyond what is provided by a local government. Two problems: A 2015 document from the Dogpatch and NW Petero Hill GBD that contains a baseline cleaning and maintenance services document is the only document that lists baseline services provided by local government. There is some overlap in the draft plan of services and improvements with the baseline like crime prevention. In article 15A, activities and improvements are not limited to the list of additional services. Property can be bought for the Public Realm with no more than 50% coming from GBD assessments over the term of the GBD.

Jonathan Goldberg, Green Benefit District Program Manager at San Francisco Department of Public Works said "At its core, the function of a Green Benefit District is to create a steady, dependable, and legally enforceable funding stream to support ongoing services and improvements." andrea_jonathan_ggp_ucsf_12-14-2017.pdf

Does this sound like additional enchancements?



False. The ISGBD geographic boundaries have not been “determined by extensive public engagement and participatory design”. The ISGBD geographic boundaries have been determined by a small group of non-elected people who have not shared the professional neighborhood survey data or other information that is used to determine the boundaries.



In Article 15A, the word “enhancements” is not used. It simply states: “Such services, improvements and activities may include, but are not limited to, involvement with ecological systems, water and energy systems, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and recreational improvements.”
In Article 15A, “Public Realm” has a greater definition than presented above leaving the last sentence out. “Public Realm” areas may be owned by public and/or private entities or persons.”


The Management Plan can be changed by the Board of Supervisors. There is nothing in Article 15A that says only a vote of assessed property owners can change the Management Plan. If this is true, it must be written into the Management Plan of a GBD. It is also unclear if a change of Management Plan requires a Board of Supervisors approval. In Article 15A, a Management Plan is also known as a Management Contract. The contract is with the city that collects the assessment and resolution made possibly the forming of GBDs in the city. Since the Management Plan has to initially be approved by the Board of Supervisors, it only stands to reason that they have to approve any change or it makes the initial approval mute.

Back to Table of Contents

Under How was the ISGBD Management Plan developed?, page 10.


Key to note here that this represents only the people that responded to the survey. All numbers based on ISBGD Survey Results Summary pfd

679 responses out of 3487 parcels of which 2,964 are zoned residential (based on 85% of total parcels are zoned residential from pfd). 19% total response rate. Of the 679 responses, 19% response rate: 51% were in favor of forming a GBD, 8% against, and 41% needed more information. Using these numbers: 346 people favored a GBD in the survey. Out of 3487 that is 1% of the people in the Inner Sunset survey area. Given the low overall response rate to the survey and only 1% of people in favor of a GBD, I do not think that is strong support for a GBD. The survey also only gave people the option of being in favor of the GBD, needing more information or against. It did not give any alternative options like paying per project.

Missing from the report is the breakdown of respondents. Raw data shows

438 homeowners
173 renters
55 businesses, non-residents
---------------------
666 respondents

Only property owners can vote the GBD into existence. Combining all respondents together, those who can vote and those who can not vote for the GBD, inflates the survey results.

The response rate of homeowners is 438/3487 = 12.6 %.

Many survey results need to be reduced to reflect the number of property owners vs combined groups. It is unclear the breakdown of positive surveys among the above group, but taking it as an even breakdown of 51% positive, 51% of 438 homeowners is 223 homeowners.

223 homeowners of 666 total respondents equals 33%

223 homeowners of 3487 total parcels in the Inner Sunset district as defined by the Formation Committee is 6% homeowners that say they are positive towards establishing an ISGBD. Note these figures come from what is available to us at this time; it is unclear why total respondents varies from 666 to 679. Most likely the higher number includes people that did not fully respond to the survey or other problems.

Back to Table of Contents


This provision is in state legislation Title 5, Division 2, Part 1, Chapter 4, ARTICLE 4.6. Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act [53750 ] (b) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=53753 The weighted ballot by assessment is being used to increase the likelihood of Green Benefit Districts passing. This undermines democracy. We consider it fair if taxes and assessments are proportioned by benefits received or income. If that is fair, than an equal weighted 1 to 1 vote on whether to be taxed that proportional assessment should be used. It is unfair to weight larger property owners that pay more assessments than a regular homeowner on a vote about whether people should be taxed proportionally. Larger property owners tend to not live in the GBD boundaries and are corporations.

Assessments are proportional to square feet and designated special benefit areas which can be fair, but to use that for a greater proportion of the vote is not fair in a democracy. It is the same as saying that people that have more wealth or pay more taxes have a greater say. A weighted vote based on anything is anti-democratic. We do not vote for government officials or ballot measures by a weighted vote.

If GBDs are for unnecessary things above and beyond city services than they should not be given more preferential treatment with a weighted vote than how we vote for spending and services that are necessary. If GBDs are a good idea they should be able to be passed by a majority of property owners.

To the Next Red Must Read

Under ADVOCACY & PROMOTION, page 14.


The problem with this type of advocacy is that it puts a person or organization as a “go between” between citizens and elected officials, or city employees. It has pluses, but big minuses. Nothing motivates elected officials more than an overwhelming number of their voters contacting them on issues. Having a central person or organization that is the point of contact can undermine civic engagement. It will reduce the influence of neighbors and other neighborhood groups. It puts a separation between neighborhood voters and the Supervisors that are supposed to represent them. Supervisors have aides. It does not make sense to hire an advocate, at around the proposed $120,000.00, when the aides and Supervisors are already supposed to be our advocates. That is why we elect them and pay them.

The other problem with this section is that it insinuates a person(s) or business that will be hired to manage and work “in close collaboration with the Chairperson of the GBD Board but does not spell out this advocate. Only later in Governance, hiring an Executive Director is spelled out.

On page 13.



27.6 % of the budget falls under advocacy, promotion, management and operations. Thus the first year budget and the amount of clawback of donations/grants to form the GBD are not readily apparent in the budget.

Back to Table of Contents

Page 14.



This is a very questionable incentive to have to find projects to use all the money up or face a reduction in annual assessments levied. The cost of services and improvement projects can vary from period to period. In determining the quality and need of projects to fund a possible trigger of reduction in funds should not be a factor. The statement says this is mandated by the city but I do not know where. The mandate does not appear in Article 15A or Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994

Page 15.



It is good this is capped at $50,000 as the actual formation cost will probably be north of $50,000. There is one Build Public estimate of a need to raise $226,000.00 from donors to establish an ISGBD.

Page 15.



Currently in the Management Plan, it states no debt can be issued, but Management Plans can be changed in the future and Article 15A allows for debt against GBD assessments.

Page 15.



More information on Golden Gate Park Institutions being in an Inner Sunset GBD can be found in the is e-mail exchange between Jonathan Goldberg and Andrea Jawin, a co-chair of the ISGBD Formation Committee: andrea_jonathan_ggp_ucsf_12-14-2017.pdf

In 2014, there was an attempt at a Commercial Business District (CBD) that failed. This failure is partly why bringing homeowners into a Green Benefit District that would include commercial properties is being tried. It is unclear that if a CBD is formed whether the boundaries of an ISGBD will change to exclude the CBD boundaries. Survey result (below), from a survey done by the Inner Sunset Foundation Committee, show there is still little support for an “Improvement and Maintenance Assessment District” along the Irving and 9th Ave. corridor.

Page 16.



Appendix C is missing from the draft Management Plan. For that matter so is appendix A and B.

Page 17.



Missing in the draft Management Plan.




These provisions are in accordance with ARTICLE 15A_ PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (_GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS_) and Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994. One thing to note is that the percentage to disestablish is lower (50%) than what is needed to establish a GBD (51%+).

Back to Table of Contents

Under Governance, Page 22.



The Interim Board is also responsible for writing the Bylaws for the ISGBD Board of Directors.

A non-elected group of people will write the bylaws or another way to look at this is that by voting for an ISGBD you are also voting the Formation Committee members to be the Interim Board to write the bylaws. This is important as to how ISGBD board members are placed on the board. The board composition as written further down in the Management Plan has homeowners, commercial businesses, renters, specialists, and maybe two CBD representatives and it is unclear who votes for whom, how it will be conducted, and whether some will even be voted in.

Page 22.



If a business-based District is successfully formed by cultural institutions in Golden Gate Park, the GBD Board of Directors would expand by two seats, dedicated to these assesses. Thus, the new total for the ISGBD’s Board of Directors would be 17 members.

So 14% of the board are “program area specialists” that are non-elected (?), not accountable, maybe not even live in the inner sunset, and may have a conflict of interest. What democratic grassroots organization allows for this? It’s fine for consulting, but actually, have a vote? It is unclear how they get on the board, but what is clear is that unless they live in the GBD area, they are not taxed. These types of board members are found in non-membership corporate nonprofits.

Another problem is how will a CBD made of park institutions and commercial businesses be satisfied with two board members but separate assessment and financing of a CBD and GBD and yet all board members vote on projects and spending for each district?

It should also be noted that if two CBD members are placed on a board of 15 members the percentage voting power of property owners in a GBD would fall below 50% which violates ARTICLE 15A_ PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (_GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS_).

Under Management of District, page 4.


The proposed GBD and CBD have separate assesses and finances that count against each other if voting on the same board. Another way to put this is Park Institutions are not part of the GBD and along with “program area specialist” are not assesses of a GBD and therefore lower GBD property owner’s percentage on the board.

From Selection Process, Page 23.



It is unclear how a District Stakeholder Advisory Committee is formed or what the vetting standards are. It is also possible that if factionalism occurs, a faction can control who is on the board. Considering the bios across the GBD from homeowners to tenants is going to be very diverse and the candidates should represent that diversity, I do not see bios vetting as a good determination of who should be allowed to run. Alternatives are to allow people to file to run and run all people that file and /or require that they get a certain number of verifiable signatures of people that live in the district. Getting signatures would show that they have some possibility of being voted on to the ISGBD board.

From Selection Process, Page 23.



Even though the board has to include people other than property owners only property owners can cast votes. This means that if tenant representatives, “program area specialists” are put on the board by a vote than only property owners will be able to vote for them.

Back to Table of Contents

★Other Inner Sunset Green Benefit District Issues ISGBD Expansion

In this article: https://sfrichmondreview.com/2017/03/09/green-benefit-district-proposed-for-inner-sunset/

Andrea Jadwin, an Inner Sunset GBD Formation Committee Member said, “There is also the possibility that the benefit district could be extended to the Outer Sunset District. Once completed, it will empower the neighborhood and hopefully, at some point, will include the Outer Sunset as well,” Jadwin said.

This would be quite an extension of the ISGBD from the neighborhood village atmosphere that the Formation Committee espouses in the cover letter of the draft Management Plan. This should be a wake up call to everyone that is outside the current boundaries of the ISGBD that there are intentions to expand the boundaries even far outside the neighborhood.

Liens on Low-Income Individuals

This issue of assessing aditional property taxes on low-income, fixed income property owners is problematic and has not been solved. The below is from Toral Patel e-mail timeline2018_12-8-2017.pdf:

"Jonathan is following up with the City Assessor today for more information about liens. More details later.

For now, please note that the Management Plan cannot outline provisions for low-income individuals (deferred assessment as liens or otherwise). This is something that can be operationalized post-formation. If the established GBD chooses to do so, it can create guidelines for accommodating low-income individuals in the district. One common option is establishing a "fund," to which individuals can apply for assessment assistance.

A few caveats: (1) The assessment cannot be presented as optional, so you''ll need to be careful in how you talk about this. (2) You'll need to think about how you'd like to define criteria for who qualifies for this assistance."

Proposed Projects of the Inner Sunset Green Benefit District

The Articles and Ordinances that govern the establishment of a GBD do not require a GBD Formation Committee to be very specific as to the projects that they envision, though it would probably help their cause if they could give specific examples. The ISGBD website of envisioned improvement and projects is vague.



In November 2016, 79% of San Francisco voters passed Proposition E, which set aside $19 million annually from the city’s general fund for Public Works to maintain the trees and any sidewalk caused by the trees. https://sfpublicworks.org/streettreesf-faq

At the time of this writing (Spring 2018), Friends of the Urban Forest provide trees for free or up to a typical cost of $135.00 https://www.fuf.net/programs-services/greening/free-trees/

The GBD wants $750/tree based on their budget description of planting 200 trees/year for $150,000/year every year for ten years. Prop. W drafted by Supervisor Jane Kim and passed last last year provides $20,000,000/year to DPW for tree care. BUT DPW is promoting GBDs to transfer tax supported services to prviate non-profits, while collecting the Prop. W $20 million and urging individual owners pay added tax assessments.

The city baseline services require the city to water its new trees for three years. Property owners can have new trees watered and planted by themselves or through Friends of the Urban Forest. Friends of the Urban Forest will plant and water a new tree for three years in the Inner Sunset for $135.00 or less and less than what ISGBD is budgeting. Do we need a homeowners association to mandate that property owners put a tree in front of their house?

Sidewalk gardens- The sidewalks are already way too cluttered. There are many places along Irving and 9th where people must walk single file to pass each other because of all the sidewalk “furniture”.

Back to Table of Contents      To the Next Red Must Read



Landscape medians- It is unclear where? Lincoln Way? New medians were added and landscaped by DPW on Kirkham, seems to fall under baseline services provided by the city.

Wayfinding and directional signs are not a benefit to homeowners but to tourists. There may be interest by large institutions but they should pay for such signage. Given how most tourists now use phone digital maps to navigate and that this will continue to increase, wayfinding signs would be obsolete now and into the future. They would also be another cost to maintain. But again we have too much street “furniture” in the area where these would likely be placed so putting up wayfinding, street furnishings, and/or other tools would not enhance pedestrian safety, just more things to avoid hitting or tripping over. Decorative crosswalks should be under “art”.



This can be funded on a per project bases as has been done with the tiled steps.



An organization would be helpful but a GBD does not need to be that organization.

Commercial zone clean and safety should fall under a CBD. In 2014 a CBD failed. The Inner Sunset survey done by the Formation Committee shows little to counter support for an assessment district in the commercial zone of the Inner Sunset.



Cleaning and Steaming of Sidewalks – Similar issues as graffiti removal and not really a problem in most of the Inner Sunset. I doubt most homeowners think that they need their sidewalks regularly steam cleaned. If this is an issue it is mainly an issue along the commercial corridor and should be handled by a CBD.

Graffiti Removal – Graffiti removal is required by city ordinance to be removed by the property owner. While this could be a service a GBD could provide, it would require paint matching, which complicates who provides the paint and would the GBD just provide someone to paint over it? Also if this problem exists, it is mostly along the Inner Sunset commercial corridor and close to the park. I do not see a GBD doing much more than trying to enforce city code. Is it necessary to have another bureaucracy that property owners pay for to enforce this?

Bike Improvements (listed on the ISGBD website) - The city’s Vision Zero initiative and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s advocacy seems to have this covered very well. I do not see any additional services or improvements that an ISGBD could provide.

Crime Prevention - The above insinuates that a service will be hired during major events or holidays. First, the city provides a crime prevention service called the police. Second this may be just a small part of the Inner Sunset that “needs” this service. Alternatives include coordinating neighborhood watches and home security cameras. This does not require a GBD with its overhead.

Back to Table of Contents

Renters/Tenants and GBDs

Renters have zero votes in the petition or final vote in establishing the Green Benefit Districts.

There is a good chance that any assessment paid by your landlord will eventually be passed on to their renters.

Furthermore, as the ISGBD engineering report states on page 14:

Each parcel will specially benefit from:


Note that GBDs will "Enhance rental incomes". The ISGBD engineering report has to be submitted along with the Draft Management plan to the city attorney’s office to get a GBD to the petition stage. It has not yet been submitted, as far as I know, The ISGBD engineering report has not been released to the public on the ISGBD website that I know of but you can download the report here: http://innersunsetsf.org/docs/isbgd/engin_plan_draft_27dec17.pdf

As far as renters are concerned, they should have a talk with their landlords about which way the landlord should vote on the ISGBD. This goes for even the big commercial landlords. If enough renters get together and express their feelings, they will probably follow. Also remember, all GBDs have to eventually be approved by the Board of Supervisors who are voted by all the citizens of San Francisco with a 1 equals 1 vote. So eventually, renters can vote Supervisors out if they approve of GBDs.

One of the things about paying on a “per project bases” for projects and services to make the neighborhood better is that renters can also participate along with property owners.

Other promises or supposed things that the ISGBD would tackle:

Homelessness - San Francisco does have good homeless advocacy. The homeless problem is complex, large and ongoing. I doubt an ISGBD can do more than say we have a problem. I feel that having heard some Formation Committee members tout that an ISGBD would take on the homelessness problem in the Inner Sunset. It is a huge over promise.

Placing overhead wires below ground – This was done from Arguello to Sixth Ave in the Inner Sunset without a GBD. This would require homeowners in the area to agree to do this. The assessment needed would be in addition to a GBD assessment. It is unclear as to how necessary the role of an ISGBD would be.

Oversight to make sure city services are provided - This makes me wonder why DPW supports the formation of GBDs. Do they require /want oversight? Currently, DPW has a plan for improvements in the Inner Sunset it can be found here: http://sfpublicworks.org/innersunsetimprovements

Some of this improvement will be for pedestrian safety. They seem to be doing a good job implementing their plan at this point in time.

Back to Table of Contents

Calculate Your Weighted Vote and Assessment