>> commissioner honda: we have a special guest in the back. maybe we could have former president frank fung vote on that. >> i think we'd need a charter amendment, and we're not prepared to do that at this point. okay. we'll hear from mr. paul. >> i was hoping that former president fung to testify in this matter. you might see him tomorrow. yes, those thursday afternoons. thank you, commissioners. dang jeremy paul on behalf of the project sponsor. i just learned of a personal tragedy in my life so i'm having trouble gathering my thoughts. lost a good friend, but i would

like to tell you what happened that brought this case to where it is. a bit less than a year ago, i was meeting with a planner reviewing the model of a seismic upgrade, existing units, and remodel of the units. and i was discussing with a very experienced planner, max poutra, on what we were going to do with this basement, and how we could best incorporate this basement into the unit above. it was never intended to do this unit as an a.d.u. un-- asn addition.

it was staff's recommendation to be a dwelling unit. i'm going to go to the computer now and run through a few slides and show you a little bit about this. this is what the basement looked like. it was storage in the back and a row of storage throughout. when the seismic upgrade was done, ceiling heights were increased, and the spaces were improved with windows as you

see here. this is what the remodel looks like. this is the angle in the other direction. you can see the staircase that takes up most of this back yard patio. a new steel staircase was put in with grating such that the entire staircase that was there is no longer there. here is a entry declaring it as a very clear entry to housing, and this is what one sees when one comes in that entry. so this is not a dark basement by any means. this is quality housing. we can turnoff the overhead, please. i'd like to run through our findings a little bit.

because there is actually a flaw in the way the zoning administrator reviewed this and the findings that the zoning administrator made in disapproval. in the disapproval findings, the sewning administrator referred to substandard exposure to -- the zoning administrator referred to substandard exposure to light and area in finding three and finding four, stating the proposed a.d.u. would create a dwelling unit with significant substandard to light and air. light and air is a building code issue. light and air in this unit is met light and air of 10% of the floor area, five for

ventilation, and five for light, and we exceed that. the outdoor space, it is true that this looks an exposure to the outdoor space. you have an aerial photo of what the exposure to outdoor space is like. there is an exit that provides considerable access to sky, light, and air, but we do not meet the minimum standard set by the planning code, and i would argue that the planning code can't always capture all the needs for what defines quality housing. so i'd like to quickly run through the findings that i believe we have sufficiently made in favor of allowing this

housing. that there are exceptional extraordinary circumstances is the first one. while the proposed unit would lack sufficient exposure to meet the zoning administrator's limit, the lot faces a large protected midblock open space. number two, that there's an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, and that is always the most difficult finding to make. in this particular situation, the unnecessary hardship is not on the developer, it's not on mr. mallia, who has renovate this particular apartment building. he's not a speculator, he's not flipping this for condominiums, this is for tenants. the unnecessary hardship is upon the community at-large,

it's upon the housing stock of the city. that here is a quality space that could be inhabited by a tenant in this very dense neighborhood where basement units are far darker and far left exposed by this. i would suggest that in this case, the zoning administrator has erred in his discretion to not approve a housing unit that would add to the qualitying housing stock -- quality housing stock of this city. i have a tenant who wishes to move in who will make statements, and i will answer any questions about the project. >> excuse me, sir. how come you didn't put all those lovely pictures in your

presentation? >> i hadn't taken them yet. >> commissioner honda: and what would be the purpose of this? >> can you give me a moment to speak with my -- >> commissioner honda: what would be the rent of this? >> it would be 1750 a month. >> commissioner honda: and could you refresh my memory what the square footage is. i'm sorry. you can come to the podium, sir. >> actually, it's a pretty spacious studio. i did some checking in the neighborhood. it's about 500 square feet. >> commissioner honda: and according to the pictures, nice

job. >> thank you. believe me, i put an extraordinary effort into this building. i plan to keep it in the familitor generations. >> sir, just for the record, you're ronald mallia. >> yes ma'am. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> excuse me. can you explain how you had had the building approved but did not have the variance yet? why go through the expense without a variance in hand? >> can you for the question, commissioner. the order that things took place is that we had a permit for the remodels of the rest of the building, and we had to resolve the use of the basement and the connection of the basement to the lower unit. planning proceeded to approve the permit for the remodel of the rest of the building for

the seismic upgrade without including a dwelling unit down there, allowing us to file a variance application. mr. mallia was the general contractor getting the work done, doing it on his own. he purchased cabinetry and materials for each of the units in the building. so he had those setup in the unit as he finished the space out. he got the permit finaled without installation of the kitchen. these materials are just placed against the wall, and it's not currently inhabitable form. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioner honda: you say that with a straight face? i'm sorry. >> there are a few connections to be made, commissioner honda. i'm sure those can be done fairly quickly or undone fairly quickly. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> thank you.

we will now hear from the planning department. >> good morning, planning commission. scott sanchez, planning department. double surprise because i had no idea that the sunt wunit wa until the photos were put up. that's not what's been represented to the planning department or planning department staff that there was an existing illegal unit ready for occupancy and they've got somebody wanting to rent it. the photos looked like it was all finished and ready for occupancy, but that is not represented anywhere that i saw in the appellant's brief nor the plans nor any of the materials that were presented to the zoning administrator. it's my understanding that the variance for this was filed in january 2018. there was a hearing on the case

earlier this year. the zoning administrator denied the application. it's an rm-2 dwelling unit. they're already over density by one, and they we wanted to add an a.d.u. the -- generally and historically, the compliant of the code require that each dwelling unit have one room that meets standards of a certain size that have windows of a certain size that face into an area of a certain size. and that's a street at least 20 feet in width, a rear yard that meets the requirements of the planning code or an open space that's 25 by 25 and goes

up the larger the unit. the board of supervisors didn't want to remove the requirement entirely because exposure is an important factor for dwelling units, so they allowed variances, and allowed a space that was 15 by 15. at the time of zoning administrator, and some of -- at the time i was zoning administrator, and some we would approve, some we would disapprove, and some would go to you. but last year, they reduced it even further to 225 square feet or at least nine neat by 9 feet. so this doesn't meet the original coat requirement, the second code requirement, or the

newly reduced. it could have just said that it's a waiver and the zoning administrator would have great flexibility. i don't think the appellant has provided any information to demonstrate what the hardship here is other than they have a unit that's already constructed that they would like to occupy. and we very much encourage new dwelling units, but we do have to have minimum standards. in this case, you know, it is at the bottom -- at least it's not north facing, but it is at the bottom level of a very tall building. it's four stories over the basement, at least buildings that are taller. and i could put more work on the overhead -- >> commissioner honda: are your pictures as good as his? >> not at all. but could i have the overhead, please? >> commissioner honda: thank you -- oh, that was in the package. >> no, that's a bad one. you can see in there, you can't

even see the floor level that the building is going to be located at. it's four stories over basement. it's four, three, two, one, and at that level there. so -- and i have concerns with seeing the work that was done here without permit. i mean, the stairs look at if we were replaced, and i don't know that that was on any of the plans. that's not showing as part of the scope of this project. it may have been other previous permits, and we can review that. but, again, none of that, to my knowledge, was made available -- none of that information was made available to the zoning administrator at the time of the variance hearing earlier this year. and i think the zoning administrator very clearly outlined the reasons -- i know this is not acceptable or appropriate exposure that has been justified by the board of

supervisors. the new information that the unit is already constructed, it's not anywhere in the appellant's brief, and i can understand even more now why they want to have the variance overturned, but the fact that they've illegally constructed the unit does not justify the approval of this variance. i'm available for questions. >> commissioner honda: i've got a question, scott. so considering the lovely board of supervisors institutes all the laws that we have to file, doesn't he have to legalize it after? >> yes, he has to legalize it after -- >> commissioner honda: and we have lots of illegal units, that have wiring through the wall, and bare piping and

substandard egress. and now, the city's goal is to legalize all those units. what happens if this case comes back to us seven months from now and it's been rented out and he has to legalize it? >> so the code says you must legalize it, but if you can't legalize it -- and in this case, they've gone through the -- even though they didn't ask for legalization, they tried to get the a.d.u., they would be required to remove it. the code requires that you seek legalization, but if the legalization is denied, then, the unit is to be removed. >> commissioner honda: okay. i'm not an architect or a planner, but looking at the pictures, and a picture is worth a thousand words. i lived at 101 suramonte, and that is way nicer.

>> i would ask the appellant why they didn't present this to the zoning administrator? why they didn't present this at the time of the hearing? maybe it was still under construction. i don't know if these photos were available at the time. i spoke with the zoning administrator today, and i didn't ask him if the unit was there -- >> commissioner honda: i talked to him today, too, but he didn't make any mention of that. i don't think any information was made available to the zoning administrator about those qualities of the unit. >> commissioner honda: so looking at the unit, i see lots of light and air in my thoughts. so why would it -- and i'm not trying to be argumentative. why would it not qualify at that point? >> we are looking at the dimensional requirement. that photo is probably taken at the best time of the day and best time of the year to get that. >> commissioner honda: no one knows how to photoshop in this

modern technology. >> but we've been very strict on applying the standards -- and again, this may be new information that was not available to the zoning administrator -- >> commissioner honda: would you be interested in taking a look at it and us potentially continuing it? >> i could take this new information. we could certainly review the history as well and review it with the zoning administrator and get his updated view on the -- >> commissioner honda: i trust you as a junior zoning administrator and joe duffy as a senior building inspector, i look at the pictures, wow, that looks like a really nice unit. if you do a site inspect, you can say hey, they probably brought in flood lights to bring that light? >> i can review it with the zoning administrator, and get

his review on this, and report back to you. >> i have a question for you. in regards to a.d.u.s that the zoning administrator has granted or not granted since the more relaxed 225 square foot regulation came into being, does he tend to allow variances, in terms of this is half the required size or is it pretty strict, you don't meet the 225, you're not getting the variance fore exposure? >> it's my understanding that there's only one two units approved under the negate reduced standards. one, it has a street that didn't meet the minimum street requirements and set back. independently, they didn't meet the requirements, but separately, they did, so that satisfied the intent of the code requirement. and then, the other one was had -- situated in a way that there were two very large light wells, and basically every room

in the a.d.u. had exposure on to one of those two very large light wells, that, you know, were each very close to meeting the minimum dimensions, so it was substantially different from what we have here, where there's just one area and it's very clearly not meeting the code requirements. >> okay. thank you. >> does the 110 measurement include or exclude the measurement of the staircase? >> it excludes it. >> does anybody know what it would be including the staircase? >> i believe it would be a larger area. >> and before making these findings, did planning visit the unit at all? >> in this case, i don't know.

probably staff did not do a site visit and relied on the materials submitted by the applicant to demonstrate their case. >> i had another question. for finding number five, it says a requirement -- i was confused. it says a requirement for finding number five was not met, but then, the discussion seems to say that actually it is met. so i -- it looked like a mistake to me on that finding. >> well, actually under finding two -- or a-2 of finding five, it does say that the project will not be in keeping with the existing housing and neighborhood quality that the a.d.u. is of substandard quality, falling below the requirements of such unit. so with that -- >> okay. so that's in keeping. essentially, i read this as for all five findings, since it's below the statutory number of 225, we shouldn't do it, which sort of seems like weird logic

since the purpose of a variance is to go below the code. >> but it's also based on the materials that are presented by the appellant, and they weren't able to show that there are exceptional or extraordinary conditions. we can't make findings that don't exist. >> i see. >> vice president swig: can i grill you for a second? >> or two or three. >> vice president swig: i'm like commissioner honda. we see these circumstances where people have been living in so-called your mother-in-law units or grandmother units where wives or mothers are picked on, and the intent of the legislation was to try to limit illegal rental of really bad units, and hoping that people would come out of the closet and say okay, we've been

renting this unit illegally. now, we can make it legal again. and with -- and this kind of flies in the face of that. i think commissioner honda's exactly right. if i was the building owner -- now, it wouldn't be me, but it wouldn't be unheard of that a building owner would say okay, fine, i lose. i'm going to rent illegally, and we have another illegal unit on the streets of san francisco. here, we have a unit that may be out of compliance but it gives somebody who might otherwise be homeless an opportunity to live under a roof instead of under the stars. so i'm really trying to work hard to -- in the spirit of creating housing right now,

it's clear that the project sponsor blew it, you know -- >> commissioner honda: jumped ahead as we say. >> vice president swig: jumped ahead and done a few things, and now he's being justifiably punished for that because you're not going to do that you're not supposed to do the act and then pray for forgiveness, but it is more housing stock in a city that's plagued with no housing stock. so what i'd like to know here and help me with this. under finding one that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property, etc., etc. if -- if this unit were permanently designated as an

affordable unit, and this unit could not be rented as a market rate but add restrictions on its rental to a person that met the affordable status, would that create a -- a -- an exceptional or an extraordinary circumstance? >> the planning code does not require an affordable unit for this proposal and one has not been proposed. >> vice president swig: i understand. but if this were conditioned, and the property owner were to mandate that -- >> i would discuss that with the city attorney, but that would be an ad hoc condition of approval -- usually, there needs to be a voluntary concession here on the part of the property owner.

if they want to designate a unit as affordable that's not required under law, there would be certain other requirements to make that happen. but this unit has not been proposed by the applicant as affordable. it's not required under the code. >> vice president swig: for example if we were to continue this and as far as your oversight, you looked at it further, and during the hiatus, the project sponsor would voluntarily designate this as an affordable unit, would that create an exceptional extraordinary situation? >> i would -- i'd be careful in how i -- i want to be careful in how i respond to thatthat. i would want to discuss that with the zoning administrator before i get an out on that. >> commissioner honda: calling corey now. >> vice president swig: i'm not

trying to pardon a misdeed on the -- clearly, there was a misdeed done. clearly, there was an improvement that should not have been made. clearly, it was done outside the permit. clearly, all these things are wrong. at the same time, where i'm trying to go with this, at the same time, if this is going to find itself under further review, i'm just asking if that condition was voluntarily made, would it be something that the zoning administrator would consider as an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. >> in regards to this case, this is a de novo hearing, and it's now before this board to make a decision to the variance, it would be up to the board to make that finding as an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. >> commissioner honda: mr. vice president, may i interject. i think we're trying to stream line conditions, but i'm personally leaning towards a continuance. we can stream line that instead of hearing all this process and

potentially is that -- is that eveni even okay to suggest? >> vice president swig: yeah. we have to go through rebuttal and save this discussion for later. >> i would have to research if this is a condition that the board can impose. >> vice president swig: i'm hearing, counselor, that that's good advice, we can't suggest thation. i'm just raising that query that if we were to continue this case and at the suggestion of commissioner honda on that the zoning -- honda that the zoning administrator take this under recommendation -- >> commissioner honda: it's a beautiful illegal unit. i used to be the standard in san francisco several years ago, just so you know. >> vice president swig: then maybe another circumstance be

considered, that it be permanently voluntarily deeded to an affordable situation. that's all. and it would be already rent controlled. >> i can have the zoning administrator review the photos and get his opinion on the -- >> commissioner honda: the new nonlegal improvements. >> vice president swig: why don't we move on to public comment. >> clerk: okay. i just wanted to say that vice president lazarus has a prior commitment and has to leave. madam vice president? [inaudible] >> vice president swig: okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we are now on to public comment. is there anyone who would like to speak on this matter? >> commissioner honda: good evening and welcome. >> hi. good evening.

my claudine, and i have been looking for an apartment in the area. so far, the apartments that i look at, they're either too expensive or it's not that nice or too small. and mallia showed me his studio apartment on 1606 jones, i was very excited. i said oh, that's perfect for me and my son. however, he told me that it's not been approved, and i was -- i don't understand. it's all very, very nice. everything is all brand-new. i don't understand, and if you can give me a chance to move into this apartment, it would be greatly appreciated, and it would really for improve me and my son's life, and thank you for your time and consideration. >> commissioner honda: thank you. and camera's house has an a --

cameron's house has an amazing story of what they've done. >> clerk: thank you. we will now move on to rebuttal. mr. paul, you have three minute. >> thank you, miss rosenberg, commissioner swig. there was no doubt that the kitchen was finished beyond the scope of issued permits. this would be legally active space under the permits that were active at the time and completed. so it is -- was the clear understanding of this contractor and owner that he was sticking his neck out in a way that he might be cutoff. but the economies of scale when you're doing a large about

renovation like that, in tenants and trying to keep costs to as low as possibnarro so you can keep rents as low as possible, it made sense that he purchased those cabinets and put them in. it was a justifiable risk at the time. it's a cost that he's willing to assume to remove them. if this kitchen has to be removed, this scare will be altered -- this stair will be altered, and people will still be living there, but it won't be part of a dwelling unit, and it won't be part of a dwelling unit that people won't use very much. where you have an option to give it to their tenant and son who really will make good use of their space.

in -- with due respect to the zoning administrator and his position, i don't think that they're able to really reconsider how they determine the quantitative vaulqualities exposure, although this board can take and make a de novo determination on this issue. there is the exact same scenario up four more floors above this, so it is an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. it is a matter to create more housing. i would ask this board not to continue something for

something that's going to be housing stock in one way or the other. i think it's the best move for this board to approve it as a separate dwelling unit and allow rosina and her son to occupy it as quickly as possible. >> commissioner honda: so i just told you i'm willing to continue. i think if i vote this evening, i would be in support of the department. >> let's continue it. >> commissioner honda: that's what i was thinking. >> clerk: thank you. okay. we'll now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. it's good to know the board was still tough on variances. >> commissioner honda: it's commissioner fung. come on up, we have an empty seat up here. >> so to correct something that the appellant stated. it's incorrect that each of the

floors has the same situation. each of the other floors get their exposure to the front. they're all four flats that face through, so to correct the record there. you know, i will take the information about the, you know, really nice, new, illegal unit and those photos if the appellant can e-mail them to me, and i can discuss that with the zoning administrator and also review the zoning administrator and appreciate that to facilitate that, if the appellant would provide the proposed plans that show the required set of stairs within the required rear yard, and all the improvements that they show, including the habitable space in the back yard. certainly reconstruction of stairs within the required rear

yard can pose certain requirement code issues. >> i have a question going back to what you stated before. this variance was applied for in 2018 and heard in 2019. is that correct? >> i'm going to double-check that. >> it has a 2018 number. >> it has a 2018 number, but i believe -- >> do you know when it was submitted? >> i believe it was december 2018. >> okay. so the end of 2018. >> last question, and everyone wants to leave here. but -- so i'm not making light or giving approval of developers that -- that do work beyond the scope of permit and without a permit, just to be very clear. but at the same time, i am supportive of housing, and i've seen quite a few illegal units that are just horrible that have been legalized. and so i find it kind of a

shame that someone has gone through such great energy to make a nice unit, albeit without the proper permits, be denied. just going forward, right? i mean, this is a problem that when david chiu initiated this legislation in october of 2014 or 16, we knew what would happen. the city was based on many granny units that were based on improper plumbing, didn't have lights, improper ingress and egress. and in light of that, the city still proceeded to legalize these units, and not only don't ask, don't tell, and it made all those units legal units,

and those units are now $2500. so i would love for the department to take a further look to see if we could do something. if that includes multiple penalties for doing work without a permit, i'm fine with that, too. >> and just to correct the submittal dates for the record, it does have a 2018 case number. it was submitted at the very end of 2018. the case was created on january 7, 2018, and the case was heard on -- january 7, 2019, and the case was heard on january 8, 2019. >> clerk: okay, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i will make a motion to continue this. how much time do you think the department needs -- it's on the department rather than the permit holder. >> it's when the appellant can give us the materials including

the approved plans and the photo. the review of the zoning administrator would be relatively brief. if they could do that this weekend. >> do you think you would want to make a site visit at all to inspect the unit in person or is that not necessary? >> i think the photos speak for themselves, but we can -- we would need a little bit more time to -- >> maybe would be interesting to see what's happening inside the unit. >> dangjeremy, i'd be very nic. the zoning administrator does not like to be sacked. >> clerk: november 18. >> we're going to have a tight, busy schedule on the 6. >> we can test our new

one-minute, two-minute rule. >> clerk: would that date work for you, november 13? >> commissioner honda, if i may make a comment? >> sure. >> i don't believe there will be a need for any further testimony on the matter when it comes back. >> okay. >> it will be fully submitted before the board. if you have questions, we'll be here, but i won't have further presentation for you. >> yeah, exactly. >> can you provide the dimensions of the rear yard area when you return, the one -- the depth is not dimensioned on the plans. >> yes. >> thank you. >> in other words, we'd like to know, i mean, if you include the stairway. >> when the board comes back,

they would have to arrested clayton the find -- articulate the findings under 305 c. >> i will provide the dimensions of the rear yard, the characteristics of the open stair, and the five findings for your consideration. >> thank you. so we have a motion to continue to november 13. >> november 13, who's making that motion? commissioner honda? >> we're doing a joint. >> okay. on the motion to continue to november 13 -- [roll call] >> so that motion carries, 4-0. we'll see you on november 13. thank you. this concludes the hearing.

>> hello. i'm shauna with the league of women voters of san francisco. a long with the league and sf gov tv i'm here to discuss proposition e. a ballot measure before the voters on tuesday, november 5. proposition e is an ordinance that would amend the planning 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 francisco unified 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 two-thirds 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. i'm here with peter cowan from the council of community housing organizations and a proponent of proposition e. welcome. >> thank you. >> we're 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. we're 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, i'll 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. we've had larger sites, old industrial, it's where working class communities have been, so bringing housing to those communities is a priority goal. but it's time to have opportunities throughout the city, the northern, the

southern, to build those housing developments. but we don't have the sites. what this measure does basically is four things. first, it says any 10,000-square foot site, that's 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 don't 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 i'll 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. it's a very high cost of living. that's 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 here's why. if i'm a developer in san francisco and i want to build, i'll go to the mayor's office of housing and community development, they'll 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 it's 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 i'm a developer i'm looking at that, i don't want to build here. i'm 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. we'll get more market-rate 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, it's not anecdotal. there was a 2015 report by the california legislative analyst office which showed that building more market-rate 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, we're going to get more market-rate housing, which over time will drive the supply up. will drive the price down. that's just economics 101. that's what we need to do. and if we can, roll back the regulations and make it easier. we'll 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 nick's answer. so the legislative analyst report from 2015 did not say that the affordable housing is not effective, what it said on its own it's not effective to take care of the affordable housing needs. i'm not going to quibble. i think there is problems with the report, but i'm 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 they're not, the transactional costs are something we can't compete with. this frankly provides a little bit of the competitive advantage, by rezoning sites only for affordable housing throughout the city. that's 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 they're even having educators getting evicted from their homes. one of the solutions is to build housing specifically for educators. it's 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 you're going to get through these kind of programs because it is expensive, it's going to be so small it's 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 don't think it's going to help teachers all that much. and i think the impacts, it's going to perpetuate the program. it's not going to be great for teachers or anybody else. >> we're going to move into closing statements. >> i'm 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 we've 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 it's 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 it's homelessness, housing. it's always a crisis and the solution is always more government. these programs are just slapping a band-aid onto the pile of existing band-aids already there. i think what we need to do is follow the advice from the legislative analyst office, and start peeling back the band-aids 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 we're prepared to do for affordable housing. and once we do that, we'll 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 don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 5.

welcome we are glad you are here. this is the regular meeting of the san francisco school district. this is october 15, 2019. now, i will call this meeting to order. roll call, please. (roll call). >> thank you. tonight i am going to read a brief statement. it marks a year that i have been president of the board of education. i was vice president at the time of october and our good friend and