Cod to allow Affordable Housing projects. The planning code currently does not include specific zoning rules for Residential Projects dedicated to employees of the San FranciscoUnified School District or the Community College district. Under proposition e, 100 Affordable Housing would be allowed in Zoning Districts except on property used for parks. Would be located on lots that are 10,000 square feet. Could not demolish or replace existing units. Would be subject to less rules regarding size, ground floor height, density and other factors than other buildings. Would allow limited amount of mix use to support the Affordable Housing. And would not be subject to any conditional use restrictions, unless the restrictions have been adopted by the voters. Proposition e requires a review of proposed 100 Affordable Housing projects within 90 to 180 days, depending on the size of the project. And the proposition would authorize the expedited review of the first 500 units of proposed educator housing. The Planning Department could administrative approve 100 Affordable Housing projects without review by the planning commission. The board of supervisors could amend proposition e by a twothirds vote without voter i approval. If you vote yes, you want to amend the planning code to allow 100 Affordable Housing projects and educator housing projects in public Zoning Districts and expedite approval of the projects. If you vote no, you do not want to make these changes. Im here with peter cowan from the council of Community Housing organizations and a proponent of proposition e. Welcome. Thank you. Were also joined by nick smith from the Libertarian Party of San Francisco and opponent of the measure. Thank you for having me. Thank you, both, for being here. Were going to start with Opening Statements. Peter . Sure. Well, thank you for having me. You know, San Francisco has had this what seems like a never ending Affordable Housing crisis. We hear that in the newspapers all the time. And one of the solutions in a very simple way, the two primary ingredients for Affordable Housing are money and land. And we have this november two measures, ill speak about prop e specifically, that are really for both of those. Probably a is bonds. And prop e is about land. The need we have is to get more sites that will actually accommodate Affordable Housing throughout the city. Most of our Affordable Housing historically has been on the eastern side of the city. Weve had larger sites, old industrial, its where working class communities have been, so bringing housing to those communities is a priority goal. But its time to have opportunities throughout the city, the northern, the southern, to build those housing developments. But we dont have the sites. What this measure does basically is four things. First, it says any 10,000square foot site, thats the minimum size we need to make it a project work, will be automatically zoned to allow Affordable Housing. There is no rezoning required, no environmental impact, no conditional use. Secondly, publicly owned sites will also be zoned to allow Affordable Housing. Currently they dont allow any housing at all. Third is on School District and City College District properties, their sites will also be zoned to allow by right, educator housing. Which ill talk about more. And lastly they require that the city Planning Department review and approve these projects within a very specified time frame. This is really a big, big change to the way we do Affordable Housing. Nick . Well, we have a problem in San Francisco. Its a very high cost of living. Thats for a number of reasons. One of them, the big one is cost of housing. And i think what we all want is for housing in San Francisco to be more affordable. We recognize there is not enough supply. Unfortunately, Affordable Housing programs are really not effective in getting us the supply that we need. So what we really need to do so heres why. If im a developer in San Francisco and i want to build, ill go to the Mayors Office of housing and community development, theyll tell me, okay, you can build the project, but you have to make 25 of the below market rate housing. Or you pay a huge fee. And also its going to take a year or two maybe to get the approvals you need to get the surveys done, to start your project. Well, if im a developer im looking at that, i dont want to build here. Im going somewhere else. So what with we need to do, instead of creating these programs to fix the problem, we just need to let people build. We need to make it very easy and give people the tools they need to build in the city. Well get more marketrate housing and eventually the market rate will drop and there will be more Affordable Housing. I think you may have answered my first question. You probably do not believe this measure is the correct way to address the Affordable Housing shortage. What is the correct way . Right, i did just answer that, but i will say, its not anecdotal. There was a 2015 report by the California Legislative Analyst Office which showed that building more marketrate housing resulted in less displacement, regardless of ininclusionry housing policies. It said these programs at any kind of scale are extensive and just impractical to do. And what they advised instead was that policymakers encourage private housing development. So i said, were going to get more marketrate housing, which over time will drive the supply up. Will drive the price down. Thats Just Economics 101. Thats what we need to do. And if we can, roll back the regulations and make it easier. Well see that for everyone. Peter, same question, why is the measure the correct way to address the Affordable Housing shortage . Let me start by pivoting off nicks answer. So the legislative Analyst Report from 2015 did not say that the Affordable Housing is not effective, what it said on its own its not effective to take care of the Affordable Housing needs. Im not going to quibble. I think there is problems with the report, but im not here to debate market rate housing. This is specifically about Affordable Housing, which i think most people recognize you need both. There might be a supply argument around market rate housing that brings prices down to some equilibrium if that even exists, but certainly not the lower income level that needs to serve folks. It requires public support, and in that case, we cannot compete in the open market for sites. Even if they were available, which theyre not, the transactional costs are something we cant compete with. This frankly provides a little bit of the competitive advantage, by rezoning sites only for Affordable Housing throughout the city. Thats how we solve our problem. And then second question and start with you, peter, how does this benefit educators in San Francisco . So there has been a long discussion, at least over the last four or five years about the crisis, if you would, in the educator community. There is retention problem that the School District has, an attraction problem and theyre even having educators getting evicted from their homes. One of the solutions is to build housing specifically for educators. Its been very difficult to do because of esoteric legal and financing reasons, that have been unlocked in the last couple of years by state law. It allows us to help the School District and city college use their properties to build brand new housing for that educator workforce. This is fresh landscape. There is one, if you will model project or Pilot Project in the sunset now at the Francis Scott key elementary annex, which is sport of test sort of testing certain ideas. We want to see that expanded throughout the district. Nick, can you speak to the issue of educator housing . Well, sure. I think the amount of new housing youre going to get through these kind of programs because it is expensive, its going to be so small its going to have an insignificant effect. And to apply for this housing, you have to go through a lottery process, which is open to any employee of the Unified School District or Community College district, which includes a lot more than teachers. Peeking of teachers, this does not include teachers who are not part of the Government School system. If we care about educators, why are we not including them . Basically, i dont think its going to help teachers all that much. And i think the impacts, its going to perpetuate the program. Its not going to be great for teachers or anybody else. Were going to move into closing statements. Im going to circle back to how i started. I think this november of 2019 we have before us with these two measures, proposition a, a bond, proposition e, city wide rezoning for Affordable Housing, arguably the most significant Affordable Housing weve seen in decades. Rather than talking about Affordable Housing crisis and all the needs that are not being met, we can get to work. And its really exciting to me having spent most of my professional career in this world of Affordable Housing, working east side neighborhoods to think we have the opportunity to be doing our work in every neighborhood of San Francisco. That is going to be a whole new San Francisco. And i hope voters see that. And welcome Affordable Housing into their communities. Thank you. Nick . Well, i think every election voters are presented with one crisis after another, whether its homelessness, housing. Its always a crisis and the solution is always more government. These programs are just slapping a bandaid onto the pile of existing bandaids already there. I think what we need to do is follow the advice from the legislative analyst office, and start peeling back the bandaids and letting it heal naturally. That means allowing developers to build in the city, allowing people to build. Making that as easy as possible, which were prepared to do for Affordable Housing. And once we do that, well see more housing. The market rate drops over time as the supply goes up. And we get more Affordable Housing for everyone, not just teachers who win the lottery. Thank you, both, for your time and input on this measure. Thank you. We hope this discussion has been informative. For more information about this and other measures in the november election, please visit the department of elections website. Remember, early voting is available at city hall starting on october 7 from 8 a. M. To 5 00 p. M. If you dont vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 5. Francisco. My name is fwlend hope i would say on at largescale what all passionate about is peace in the world. It never outdoor 0 me that note everyone will think that is a good i know to be a paefrt. One man said ill upsetting the order of universe i want to do since a good idea not the order of universe but his offered of the universe but the ministry sgan in the room chairing sha harry and grew to be 5 we wanted to preach and teach and act gods love 40 years later i retired having been in the tenderloin most of that 7, 8, 9 some have god drew us into the someplace we became the Network Ministries for homeless women escaping prostitution if the months period before i performed Memorial Services store produced women that were murdered on the streets of San Francisco so i went back to the board and said we say to do something the number one be a safe place for them to live while he worked on changing 4 months later we were given the building in january of 1998 we opened it as a safe house for women escaping prostitution ive seen those counselors women find their strength and their beauty and their wisdom and come to be able to affirmative as the daughters of god and they accepted me and made me, be a part of the their lives. Special things to the women that offered me a chance safe house will forever be a part of the who ive become and you made that possible life didnt get any better than that. Whove would know this look of this girl grown up in atlanta will be working with produced women in San Francisco part of the system that has abused and expedited and obtain identified and degraded women for century around the world and still do at the embody the spirits of women that just know they deserve respect and intend to get it. I dont want to just so women younger women become a part of the the Current System we need to change the system we dont need to go up the ladder we need to change the corporations we need more women like that and theyre out there. We get have to get to help them. Hello. Im shauna with the leaving women voters of San Francisco. Along with the league and sf gov tv im here to discuss proposition d, a ballot measure before the voters on tuesday, november 5. Proposition d would impose a business tax on commercial Rideshare Companies for fares generated by rides that start in San Francisco. Currently the city of San Francisco does not impose a business tax on fares charged by commercial Rideshare Companies, such as uber and lyft. These companies provide car rides for fare and range shared rides where each passenger pays a separate fare. Typically, rides are requested using on Online Platform to connect drivers with passengers. The proposed tax is 1. 5 on a shared ride fare and 3. 25 on a private ride fare. The city would impose these taxes on fares charged by these company until november 5, 2045. Passenger rides in zeroemission vehicles would be subject to a 1. 5 business tax until september 21, 2024. The city will deposit the tax revenues, estimated at 31 million annually, into a Traffic CongestionMitigation Fund to spend for the following purposes. The San Francisco municipal transportation agency, which oversees the citys transportation system, including muni buses and trains, bicycles, traffic, parking and taxis will receive half of the revenues to improve muni service and reliability, maintain and expand facilities and improve muni station access. And the San Francisco county Transportation Authority, a county agency separate from the city that funds and plans transportation projects would receive roughly half of the revenue to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. A yes vote means you want to impose a 1. 5 business tax on shared rides and a 3. 25 business tax on private rides for fares charged by driverless Vehicle Companies to Fund Improvement in muni service. A no vote means you do not want to impose this business tax. Im here with sunny from the office of supervisor aaron peskin and a proponent of proposition d. Welcome. Hi. Were joined by Howard Epstein and opponent of the measure. Thank you, both, for being here. Were going to start with Opening Statements and well begin with howard. Why do you believe this proposition is so important . I believe it should be defeated. Thats not important. This is not going to do anything. Its not going to stop the traffic. If you look at it, and look at, for instance, the fees charged on a 20 single ride, its going to add 65 cents to the ride. On the 10 rideshare, its going to add under a dollar to the ride. Thats not going to dissuade anybody from taking the rideshares. And frankly, given the state of muni in San Francisco, given the way the taxis work where i live