This week at City Hall, lawmakers will weigh a series of high-stakes decisions touching everything from future development infrastructure, and revitalization of Mid-Market to Airbnb’s tax settlement and proposed changes to homelessness services — offering an early look at how San Francisco plans to navigate growth, public safety, and a still-daunting budget crunch.
With Monday’s Rules Committee meeting canceled, attention turns to the afternoon’s Land Use Committee meeting, which features a full docket with at least two especially meaty items.
These include board president Rafael Mandelman’s bill, which would authorize the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to purchase utility infrastructure not included in development agreements and exempt such transactions from certain oversight rules. The ordinance would allow for easier and presumably cheaper expansion of city-owned utility infrastructure in new projects, advancing long-established city policy goals.
The $120 million Airbnb demanded will now be free to help patch up the city’s shortfall, which is still over $600 million over the next two years.
But part of the ordinance that would exempt purchases from competitive bidding rules or outside review has attracted the attention of Barklee Sanders, a software engineer, PUC advisory board member, and Treasure Island resident who’s been a prominent voice in calling attention to the island’s infrastructure problems impacting its 3,000 residents.
Treasure Island has experienced over 500 power outages since 1997 and remains dependent on a legacy power grid inherited from the Navy.
Sanders has asked supervisors to amend the ordinance to increase oversight, including independent cost audits, PUC approval of contractors, and Board of Supervisors approval of transactions.
The committee will also host a hearing convened by District 5 member Bilal Mahmood, on progress in revitalizing the Market Street corridor. City departments, including the Planning Department and Municipal Transportation Agency, will present to the committee on current plans.
Topics include the state of transportation access on Market Street and especially conditions on Mid-Market — that stretch between Fifth and Ninth streets that continues to be affected by quality of life and public safety concerns, and, coincidentally, also serves as a gateway to Mahmood’s district.
Back in February, the supervisor advanced a plan to transform that part of Market Street into a new performing arts district.
On Tuesday, the full Board of Supervisors also has a full agenda, beginning with a vote as a consent item to authorize a much-lauded settlement of the overpaid tax claim filed by Airbnb. Unlike many other businesses that filed claims for overpaid taxes, which have garnered millions of dollars in paybacks, the online hospitality aggregator is settling for a payment of zero dollars.
The agreement comes after two years of haggling and a boycott by the city’s public sector unions, which consider the settlement a victory in the current struggle over the city budget. The $120 million Airbnb demanded is now free to help patch up the city’s shortfall, which is still over $600 million over the next two years.
Other notable items supervisors will vote on Tuesday include a bevy of bills cleared by the Land Use Committee in previous weeks, including numerous landmark designations forwarded in advance of the city’s Family Zoning Plan, an amendment to the plan for the One Oak Street skyscraper project, and a closed session to consult with City Attorney David Chiu on a number of federal cases the city is a part of.
One final significant item this week will be at Wednesday’s Budget and Appropriations Committee meeting, where the sole agenda item is a hearing called by District 11 member Chyanne Chen on changes to the funding and operations of homelessness services as part of the current budget process. This includes moves by Mayor Daniel Lurie to reform the permanent supportive housing model, which have caused some anxiety among nonprofit service providers.
Taken together, the week’s hearings offer a familiar San Francisco balancing act: how to fund long-promised improvements, preserve public oversight, and stretch limited dollars far enough to keep both neighborhoods and City Hall itself functioning.
