- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-09-06T03:15:39.000Z
All political contributions of $100 or more made or delivered by the lobbyist or the lobbyist's employer, or made by a client at the behest of the lobbyist or the lobbyist's employer during the reporting period to an officer of the City and County, a candidate for such office, a committee controlled by such officer or candidate, or a committee primarily formed to support or oppose such officer or candidate, or any committee primarily formed to support or oppose a ballot measure to be voted on only in San Francisco. This includes political contributions arranged by the lobbyist, or for which the lobbyist acted as an agent or intermediary.Political contributions are disclosed by lobbyists registered with the Ethics Commission on a monthly basis. This dataset updates automatically every night.
- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-12-10T18:02:05.000Z
SF311 cases created since 7/1/2008 with location information. For more information about Open311, see http://www.open311.org/.
- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-10-04T19:43:44.000Z
On January 1, 2019, new local laws went into effect that established new requirements for behested payment reports. If behested payments are made at a City officer’s behest, the donors and recipients of such payments may be required to file public disclosures regarding the payments. A donor must file Form SFEC-3620 if he or she makes a behested payment, or series of behested payments in a single calendar year of $10,000 or more at the behest of an officer. The donor only needs to make this disclosure if the donor is an “interested party” in a proceeding involving the officer that solicited the payment(s). If a donor has previously filed a Form SFEC-3.620 and during the same calendar year, subsequently makes an additional behested payment at the behest of the same officer, the donor must file an additional For SFEC-3.620 only if the donor has become involved in additional proceedings or made additional contacts that were not disclosed pursuant to section 3.620(a)(1)-(3) on the initial Form SFEC-3.620. Each row on this table represents a payee listed on a subtable of a Form 3620 filed with the Ethics Commission. The parent dataset called "SFEC Form 3620 - Donors of Behested Payments Report - Filings" can be access at the following URL: "https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/SFEC-Form-3620-Donors-of-Behested-Payments-Report-/2m4y-3tcg". Join this dataset with the sub-table using the DocuSignID.
- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-12-10T18:02:05.000Z
SF311 cases created since 7/1/2008 with location information. Download data using 'export' button to the right. Questions? View the FAQ (http://bit.ly/311faq) and the dataset changelog (http://bit.ly/311JuneChangelog) Want to map the data in your neighborhood? Check out https://sf.connect.socrata.com/ For more information about Open311, see http://www.open311.org/.
- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-12-13T22:51:08.000Z
Each City elective officer who approves a contract that has a total anticipated or actual value of $100,000 or more must file this form with the Ethics Commission within five business days of approval by: (a) the City elective officer, (b) any board on which the City elective officer serves, or (c) the board of any state agency on which an appointee of the City elective officer serves. This dataset includes SFEC Form 126 Notification of Contract Approval forms which were filed on paper with the Ethics Commission. Filings without a url in the "Filing" column can be found archived on the Ethics Commission website: https://sfethics.org/ethics/category/contracts For more information, see: https://sfethics.org/compliance/city-officers/city-contracts/contract-approval-by-city-elective-officers.
- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-09-06T01:20:53.000Z
Snapshot of San Francisco Development Pipeline. Tracking of construction and entitlement activity based on data from Department of Building Inspection's Permit Tracking and the Planning Department's Project & Permit Tracking System, processed quarterly.
- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-09-06T00:25:17.000Z
Consolidated Infant, Pre-K, and K-14 education points for facilities both public and private. Point features are intended to be located within a building footprint relevant to each site, so that they can be used to select an appropriate building footprint or parcel as seed for any required buffering. Buffering may be applied when limiting possible sites for certain businesses or specific individuals, whenever these must remain a minimum distance from school locations. Sources include: cde.ca.gov State of California Department of Education City and County Department of Technology, San Francisco Enterprise Geographic Information System Program Data current as of December 8, 2015
- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-12-15T18:31:23.000Z
This dataset includes police incident reports filed by officers and by individuals through self-service online reporting for non-emergency cases. Reports included are those for incidents that occurred starting January 1, 2018 onward and have been approved by a supervising officer. Please see https://bit.ly/2x7Ta2P for additional documentation. Disclaimer: The San Francisco Police Department does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or correct sequencing of the information as the data is subject to change as modifications and updates are completed.
- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-11-05T15:30:01.000Z
Effective January 1, 2015, an individual who qualifies as a permit consultant under San Francisco law must register and file quarterly reports with the Ethics Commission. A permit consultant is an individual who receives or is promised compensation to provide permit consulting services on a "major project" or a "minor project", including any employee who receives compensation for time spent on permit consulting services. "Permit consulting services" means any contact with the Department of Building Inspection, the Entertainment Commission, the Planning Department, or the Department of Public Works to help a permit applicant obtain a permit. "Permit consulting services" do not include simple requests for information which do not otherwise include attempts to help obtain a permit. A "major project" is a real estate development project located in the City and County of San Francisco with estimated construction costs exceeding $1,000,000 and which requires a permit issued by the Department of Building Inspection or the Planning Department. Estimated constructions costs are to be calculated in the same manner used to determine building permit fees under the Building Code. A "minor project" is a project located in the City and County of San Francisco which requires a permit issued by the Entertainment Commission. The following individuals are not permit consultants and thus are not required to register or report: -a licensed architect or engineer of record for construction activity allowed or contemplated by the permit, or an employee of that architect or engineer; -a contractor who will be responsible for all construction activity associated with the requested permit, or an employee of that contractor; or -an employee or agent of an organization with tax exempt status under 26 United States Code Section 501(c)(3) communicating on behalf of that organization regarding the development of a project for that organization. Each permit consultant must register with the Ethics Commission no later than five business days after providing permit consulting services. Quarterly disclosure reports must subsequently be filed with the Ethics Commission
- API data.sfgov.org | Last Updated 2019-09-06T01:36:48.000Z
These geographic designations were created to define geographic areas within San Francisco that have a higher density of vulnerable populations. These geographic designations will be used for the Health Care Services Master Plan and DPH's Community Health Needs Assessment. aov_fin - 1 = YES aov_fin - 0 = NO AOV's were defined using 2012-2016 ACS data at the census tract level and the following criteria: 1) Top 1/3rd for < 200% poverty or < 400% poverty & top 1/3rd for persons of color OR 2) Top 1/3rd for < 200% poverty or < 400% poverty & top 1/3rd for youth or seniors (65+) OR 3) Top 1/3rd for < 200% poverty or < 400% poverty & top 1/3rd for 2 other categories (unemployment, high school or less, limited English proficiency persons, linguistically isolated households, or disability) Tracts that had unstable data for an indicator were automatically given zero credit for that indicator. That is why two language variables are included in the bonus group, because there tend to be a high number of tracts with unstable data for language variables.