>> hello, i'm shanna with the league of women's voters of san francisco. along with the league and sfgov tv, i'm here to discuss proposition j, a ballot measure which will be before the voters on tuesday, november 8th. currently, the city has closed certain public streets to private motor vehicles, reserving the streets as open space for recreational purposes. these closures were enacted in

response to the covid-19 pandemic. in may, 2022, the board of supervisors adopted an ordinance called the golden gate park access and safety program that closed portions of john f kennedy drive and certain connective streets in golden gate park to private motor vehicles. the closures are 7 days a week, reserving the streets as open space for recreational uses. these closures do not apply to emergency vehicles, official government vehicles, inter park transit shuttle buss and similar vehicles to transport people and vehicles making delivers to the young museum. proposition j will affirm the ordinance the board adopted in may of 2022. if proposition j passes, the board may later amend the ordinance by a majority vote. if proposition

j passes with more votes than proposition i, proposition i would have no legal effect. if you vote yes, you want to affirm the ordinance the board adopted in may of 2022, reserving portions of john f kennedy drive and certain connective streets in golden gate park as open spaces and closing those streets seven days a week to private motor vehicles with limited exceptions. if you vote no, you do not want to affirm the boards may 2022 ordinance. i'm here with justin with the san francisco bicycle coalition and a proponent of proposition j, welcome. >> thank you for having me today. >> we're also joined by esther from the art san francisco and an opponent of the measure. >> thank you. >> thank you both for being here. i like to start with esther, why do you believe this proposition is so important? >> well, thank you so much for

including us. that's the first thing i want to say and we're the largest organization serving a dull was develop mental abilities in san francisco and it's important to say that this is really not about cars, it's about people. all people no matter where they live in the city and no matter how they need to get around, having access to the best parts of san francisco, so this discussion needs to include the input of people with disabilities and seniors since it has an impact on them. nobody reached out to our community, in fact we collaborated with activist to reach out to the mayor's office and the board of supervisors but we have gotten no traction. so, one piece of this conversation that has been missing is access to employment not just recreation between the cal academy and the d. young, art participants make up 35 people working and interning at these institutions so this impedes them making a live.

whether you think about getting to work, maybe it's public transit and juna is the closest they can get to the museums so they are going to need to walk 11 minutes from the end juda at ninth avenue. the shuttle isn't great for everyone either, erratic schedule. et cetera. even para transit, we had our para transit van heckled when we were dropping people off, so it's a challenge. it has been a challenge. >> thank you. justin? >> prop j reaffirmed the community agreement that the one -- they may jfk car free which is the closure of jfk cars and community agreement in expanding access for communities which included addition of 29ada spots including dedicated lot behind the -- between the ban shell and also conversations with the music concourse garage which is

eight hundred spots which is affordable but we want to make it affordable for people with disabilities and family and anyone who needs to get to the park because that's important. like, the reason this closure is important because jfk has been a part of the corridor network since 2017 which makes -- it puts in the top 13% of the streets that contribute to 75% of traffic deaths so you know, access is also about making people safe. reopening, by making this car-free is creating a safe space for all road users and in fact, access expanded by the addition of 88 spots and the addition of a shuttle every 15 minutes and has shown to the fact that daily attendance to the park is 36%. so it's important that jfk has been safe and a very accessible park for all. >> thank you. and that helps me lead into my first question is to you justin. we're talking about safety and having jfk

drive closed ask the safety of cyclists and pedestrian and i'm hoping you can talk about how you feel proposition j addresses the safety concerns that folks have around cyclists and pedestrians in the park? >> i mean, the biggest conversation we've always heard is accomplishing between the people who drive, people who bike and people who drive and making it attainable for years and jfk (indiscernible) and by separating it, it allows walkers and bikers or people who can't necessarily afford to drive to be able to walk easily to the academy but increased by having a shuttle come every 15 minutes for the park. by having other options and the addition to 80 spots and conversation with the garage, we really hope that our park is accessible and equity option for all communities.

>> thank you. esther, similar question to you. how do you address the concerns about safety, often we're talking about cyclists and pedestrians on jfk drive, from your perspective, what is the issues you have around safety? >> one of the concerns we have for people who move a little slower out and about on the closed jfk drive is whether bicyclists going by, whether there's safety for pedestrians crossing and whether bicyclists have a speed limb so that's an issue for us -- speed limit so that's an issue for. regarding the shuttle, i think it's wonderful there are one but there's no shuttle shelters and the buses are not kneeling buses and the schedule has been erratic and the pathways from the shuttle station, shuttle stops to the nearby attractions are not paved. so, we would be excited to see the parking price come down and the parking

garage, i will say that would be wonderful. >> thank you. our second question is going back to you, as you noted the facilities and cultural institutions in golden gate park is a popular destination for residents and tourists and a source of employment in san francisco, so how is access to these facilities addressed in proposition j and how do you feel, like, it needs to be addressed? >> well, there's an attempt at address going. i think the intention is fine. i think there's probably a great compromise that could be worked out but currently, by ada access requirements, it is not accessible to people with disabilities, so and that's the whole reason we're opposing this measure. and you know, golden gate park should be accessible to all. i think we both agree with that but that requires car access for some people, period.

>> same question to you justin. >> it's important that we can preserve the access, which is why there's net increase around ada around music concourse. so you have the ban slel shell and it's closer than stopping juda. this is because prop -- the jfk was an agreement and working with disability advocates and working with the mayor's office to make sure that we're really looping as many interest and concerns and needs as part of making it more accessible. this isn't about being car free but access and this measure reaffirmed the golden gate park access which is conversations about adding more recesses for ada access and lowering the garage prices and creating better wifi and it can help organize the traffic and the

busyness of jfk whether there's bikers and walkers. >> thank you. we're at closing statements, so we will start with you, esther. any last thoughts? >> sure. the closure of jfk for use during the height of the pandemic made absolute sense and people with disabilities were among the hardest hit by the pandemic. now, that it's becoming safer to get out and about, the needs of people with disabilities must be considered equally to non-disabled folks and people with disabilities should be included in this conversation and not dealt with as an afterthought or dismissed as a bunch complainers and the broader disability in san francisco should be surveyed to determine their access needs. so, there's many ways to compromise but it doesn't seem like the proposers of in prop j is in agreement with that. we see when it's inclusive, we'll get behind it but this isn't it for us yet. >> thank you. closing thoughts, justin. >> i want to mention that prop,

jfk closure has been popular in san francisco. (indiscernible) and rec. and park, so 17% of san franciscans approve the road closure at jfk and this includes the measures to make park more accessible and safe including the shuttle with net increase of ada spots and (indiscernible). there's five thousand parking spots within golden gate spots and having access to the spots and making a first class spot for bikers and walkers and we want to be a leader in community spaces in san francisco. >> thank you. and thank you both for your time and you're willingness to educate the public about this measure. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information about this and other ballot measures in the november election, please visit the department of elections website at sf elections dot org. remember, early voting is available at city hall starting on october 11th from 8:00 a.m.

to 5:00 p.m. and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 8th. >> hello, i'm shanna with the league of women voters of san francisco. along with the league and sfgov tv, i'm here to discuss proposition d, a billion on the measure which will be for the voters on tuesday, november 8th. currently, under city law, various city boards, commissions and officials generally must review and make

decisions to approve or deny the development of new housing. development of new housing must comply with the city's planning and building codes. state law generally requires the project to be evaluated for impacts on the environment. the city has affordable housing programs that offer housing for sale or rent at the below market rate. affordable housing has restrictions on eligibility for households such as maximum household income. proposition d which streamlined the approval process by exempting certain affordable housing developments from a number of approvals by the city, if those developments comply with the planning and building code. when the city leases its property or provides financing for these housing projects, the board of supervisors approval would not be required. the proposition would streamline approval of three types of multifamily

affordable housing. under the measure, the city would have five to eight months to approve these developments depending on the number of units and the measure may also allow these developments to proceed without environmental review under state law. if proposition d passes with more votes than proposition e, proposition e would have no legal effect. if you vote yes, you want to streamline approval of affordable housing project that's provide multifamily housing where all units are for households with income up to one hundred 40% of area median income and all residential unit can be more than $120 percent of air median income. additional affordable housing units equals to 15% of the number of affordable onsite units required. or that all residential units are for

households that include at least one san francisco unified school district or city college employee with certain household income restrictions. projects that use city property or city financing would no longer require a board of supervisors approval. the board of supervisors could amend city law to apply these streamline approvals to additional type of housing projects: in certain projects contractors must provide healthcare benefits and offer apprenticeship opportunity. if you vote no, you do not want to make these changes. i'm here with corey smith with the housing action coalition and a proponent of prop d, welcome. >> thank you. >> we're also joined by joseph smook from the race and equity planning coalition and opponent of the coalition. >> thanks for having me. >> thank you both for being here. i would like to start with

corey. why do you believe this proposition is so important? >> well, thank you shanna and thank you to the league for hosting this event and for sfgov tv for record and distributing. prop d isn't going to build housing and it's the affordable house measure and it will make it faster and easier to build affordable housing across all of san francisco. it does things in a few different ways. first of all, it takes the approval process which currently takes four to seven years and narrows it down to months. this increase in efficiency and approvals for code compliant project so projects that follow all of the local planning code and rules will ensure more certainty throughout the process and make sure that housing and affordable housing gets built faster. the other key point that we had is there's strong labor previsions that match the recently legislature bill 2011 and it's

prevailing wages for construction workers and healthcare opportunities and apprenticeship programs and it gives san francisco a choice and how we want to approach the next decade in the feature and quite frankly the time of saying no is behind us. we have to start saying yes, we have to start saying yes to housing and yes to affordable house and the way we do that is by passing proposition d, the affordable homes now measure this november. >> thank you. jeff, your thoughts. >> we have a number of problems with proposition d which is why i'm here and thank you for having us. the planning coalition is a coalition of nearly 40 organizations, grassroots organizations and nonprofit hausauers and cultural districts throughout san francisco. we have a vision of building a san francisco that is equitable and that is affordable for all. a number of the problems we have with proposition d is it says it provides more affordable housing but the problem is that the

affordable housing prevision is not something that affordable housing needs which is why the council housing -- they are opposed to proposition d. it provides educator housing, however, the teachers union is opposed to proposition d because it doesn't provide teachers with what they need and on the market rate side, what it does is confers a ton of value, millions of dollars of value to developers without actually promising to build anything. a couple of problems we have that are more specific, it's called affordable homes now but the problem is it actually redefines as part of the key component of the measure is to creating new definition for affordable at 140% of the area median income and that 140% area median income when you compare it to what market rate is, it's actually higher than market rate. it also doesn't require any family sized

units, so the trend in the market currently of developers to build only studios will continue. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> thank you. we have a couple of questions for both of you. and we'll start with you, joseph. so, proposition d aims to streamline the construction of affordable housing but has some caveat that may impede construction such as not requiring developers to build the housing within a certain timeframe. how do you envision or not envision that proposition d will result in the expedited construction of affordable housing. >> that's a great question and i ran out of time in my opening remarks and the problem with proposition d, and as corey mentioned earlier, it expedites the entitlements and it's deferred and they have value that's -- it doesn't require them to build until 36 months after the entitlements are

conferred. it's part of the problem we have with the way that affordable homes now, proposition d has been built and it will bring more units online faster but in fact, what it does is it further xhod guys and doesn't bring the units online. >> thank you. same question, corey. >> jeff is correct. all building permits do expire after 36 months and the reality is people who build housing for a living want to build housing. that's always the goal for people who finance housing, who construct housing. who design housing, the architects. so it has been a goal to try get the entitlement process and this is focusing on as well as the permitting process to go faster. we were proud to sponsor assembly 2234 which aimed to improve the post

entitlement building permit acquisition process to ensure that cities to respond in a timely fashion. and if that happens, if the entitlement process is efficient and the building permit acquisition process is more efficient, that's how we get affordable homes now and how we get shovels into the ground ask create homes for people that the city so desperately need. >> thank you. the second question and we'll start with you, corey. proposition d yours a prevailing wage for construction worker s affordable housing project and some level of professional training or qualifications for some workers, can you clarify how workers will be protected under proposition d and how the requirements will be enforced? >> yeah. absolutely. this is actually like i said, it's wonderful this matches the bill passed in the state legislature assembly bill 2011. prevailing wage is basically a dollar

amount that people need to make to actually construct the housing that we are going to be building. health care opportunities and majority of construction workers in the state of california do not have health care so by requiring health care opportunities, not only to the workers you their families and we know we're going to provide a stronger safety net for all residents. and then the apprenticeship programs. the big issues we have in california right now, there's a labor shortage and there's a skilled labor shortage so because the northern california carpenters union who is our proud partner, they said hey we need to move things far. we need to put solutions on the table and this is one of those measures that will not only benefit the construction workers but all unions across board. >> same question. your feelings about the requirement that's are in proposition d for workers? >> yeah, from opposition side, proposition d doesn't go far enough. it's one of the reasons why the building trades council

and the labor council are opposed to proposition d. what they require generally is that there be a requirement for skilled and trained workers and helps to close the gap between wages and housing costs. and it's extremely important to building trades that would be building these buildings. one of the things that's curious to us is that one of the things that proposition d is pushing is for form based density for larger buildings to be built residential and that generally means towards concrete and steel and it's curious to us, the carpenters union would be supporting proposition d even though -- which is not what the carpenters would be invested in >> we'll move with closing statements and any other thoughts you would like to give on proposition d, corey. >> like i said, san francisco has a great opportunity and

choice in front of us if we want to move forward and value our residents like we claim we do. proposition d is supported by supervisor dorsey, senator scott wiener and mayor london breed t. was put on a by coalition of pro housing advocates, labor units and nonaffordable housing developers and the northern california carpenters union is our strongest coalition partners as well as policy think tank like spur and affordable housing developers like mission housing development corporation as well as habitat for humanity and habitat for humanity is an interesting one because they see a problem from a wide perspective and look across the state and how we need to be building more homes for people faster and it was put on the ballot by 52,000 san francisco voters so read the facts and look at what these do and vote yes on proposition d. >> thank you. final thoughts. >> so part of the problem we

have with this, again, what proposition d is streamlines primarily market rate housing by redefining affordable to 140% median. we're looking at housing that san franciscans can't afford. bringing new lines, bringing new housing online doesn't necessarily solve the problem. san francisco during its current 8-year housing element cycle over built market rate housing by ten thousand units. and housing prices continue to out strip wage so we're concerned that what proposition d does is it doubles down on failed housing policies and what we need to do is focus our housing policies on real true affordable housing for san francisco workers, families, seniors, and those who are being priced out of the city. >> thank you. and thank you both for being here and for your time and your willingness to inform the public about this measure. >> thank you. >> thanks for having us. >> we hope this discussion has been informative. for more

information about this and other ballot measures in the november election, please visit the department of elections website at sf elections dot org. remember, early voting is available at city hall starting on october 11th from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 8th. >> hello, i'm shanna with the league of women voters of san francisco. along with the league and sfgov tv, i'm here to

discuss prove significance e a ballot measure that will be before the voters tuesday, november 8th. currently, under city law, various city boards, commissions and officials generally must review and make decisions to approve or deny the development of new housing. development of new housing must comply with the city's planning and building code. state law generally requires the project to be evaluated for impacts on the environment. the city has affordable housing programs that offer housing for sale or rent at below market rate. affordable housing has restrictions on eligibility for households such as maximum household income. proposition e would streamline the approval process by exempting affordable housing developments from a number of approvals by the city if those developments comply with the

planning and building code. when the city leases its property or provides financing for these housing projects, approval by the board of supervisors may be necessary. under the measure, the city would have six months to approve these developments. in addition to the time required for any board of supervisors approval if necessary. this measure may allow these developments to proceed without environmental review under state law. this measure requires the mayor to provide annual affordable housing reports with the mayor's proposed budget. under this proposition, the board of supervisors couldn't amend city law to streamline these to additional types of housing projects. contractors who build projects under this measure must pay their employee prevailing wages and contractors who build projects for educator

of 25 or more and they must use a skilled workforce that has a certain percentage of worker who's graj waited from apprenticeship program. if proposition e passes with more votes than proposition d, then proposition d would have no legal effect. if you vote yes, you want to streamline approval of affordable housing projects that provide multifamily housing where all units are for households with incomes up 120 miles-per-hour of jeremy january income and the average household income for all residential units can be no more than 80% of area median income. it equals to 8% of the total number of units in the entire project. or that all residential unit was for households that include at least one san francisco unified school district or city college employee with certain household

income restrictions. projects that use city property or city financing would continue to require board of supervisors approval. the board of supervisors could not amend city law to apply these streamlined approvals to additional types of housing projects. and in certain projects, contractors must use a skilled and trained workforce that includes workers who have graduated from apprenticeship programs. if you vote no, you do not want to make these changes. i'm here with charlie thomas with the council of community housing organizations and proponent of proposition e. thank you. >> thank you for having me. >> we're joined by corey smith from the housing action coalition and an opponent of the measure. >> good morning. >> thank you both for being here. i would like to start with charlie. why do you believe this

proposition is so important? >> proposition e housing our families and workers is an opportunity for san francisco really to set on the right path to achieve the affordability we need to serve our workforce and house working families. all of us are touched by the afford ability crisis where we're working family in the sunset or fillmore or china town, bay view, we all experienced that pressure and that's happening because over the last number of years, san francisco has far exceeded the production of high and luxury housing. we've built more than 51% of our state mandated goals but when it comes to affordable housing, we're short and reached less than 50% of our affordable housing goals so san franciscans are priced out. it means the next generation coming up in the city can't imagine a future in their

hometown, it means many of our aging population on fixed incomes are trying to stretch those incomes to meet their housing needs, our educator can't live in the same communities where they teach, our first responders and essential workers are unable to live in the cities they serve, so many of our local workers are unable to find rents affordable based on the wages they earn. so this proposition would accelerate our housing production to keep our city diverse to house our local workforce. it would help us achieve affordable housing balance to make housing more accessible to those who are currently priced out. >> thank you. you on this corey. >> thank you shannon and the league for hosting this and sfgov tv for being here. i does agree and don't believe san francisco built more housing, i think we need more housing at all income levels for everybody who wants to live here and i think proposition e is an extra

hearing, it's the wrong path forward compared to proposition d which we're supportive of the affordable homes measure. key things about proposition e, it was put on the ballot by the san francisco board of supervisors and this is the exact same board of supervisors that rejected a project with 24 percent affordable housing union labor on the -- it's the same san francisco board of supervisors that killed a 316 affordable by design project from being built on a church lot. and it's same san francisco board of supervisors that rejected the opportunity to acquire a hotel for homeless in supportive housing at 1800 sutter street. when you have these series of events happening and you have a board of supervisors that regularly reject housing, why did they put this measure on the ballot? the answer is simple. because pro housing advocates and labor union collected signatures and worked with the people of san francisco to put

proposition d definitely going to be building housing on the ballot. this was a response and the intent is to confuse voters and think both measures, voters should reject proposition e, no more extra hearing and vote yes on proposition d, definitely more housing. >> thank you. we're going to move into some questions and the first question is going to go to you, corey. so, proposition e aims to streamline the construction of affordable housing but has cav yeses that may actually impede count instruction such as restrictions on project overview, the type of housing that can be built and the qualification of construction workers. how do you envision that proposition e will or will not be actually result in the expedited construction of truly affordable housing? >> really good question. and when we look at these competing measures and they are side-by-side, based on the requirements there, there's absolutely no doubt that proposition d, affordable holes is going to result in more house and affordable housing.

affordable house is what we need and we need housing of all types here in san francisco. and then one of the key pieces and the key differences between these two measures is the fact that the competing measure from the board of supervisors actually allows them to maintain the ability to have hearings and continue to reject one hundred percent affordable housing projects that are code compliant. we're talking beginning projects that follow all of the local rules, all of the guidelines. those are not the projects we need to have and endless hearings which could result in unnecessary lawsuits that make it take longer and increases the overall cost of construction by really significant amount. >> thank you. same question to you, charlie. on you do you feel these caveats will impact the proposition and how do you envision it will actually result in the expedited construction of truly affordable housing? >> this housing for workers and families initiative will accelerate not only the

permitting of new housing but also the actual development and construction of new housing. so we're talking about three different housing types, one hundred percent affordable homes and educator and teacher housing and mixed income and multigenerational housing development. these developments would be required to provide at least 30% onsite affordable units serving a range of incomes from low to moderate-income. all of these new affordable units would be family size, at least two and three bedrooms to serve family households in san francisco. and this would also be a boost to workers because it would follow prevailing wage guidelines and requires skilled and trade previsions. san francisco is a uniontown. in the spirit of that, really providing a pathway for more workers in order to participate in state sponsored apprenticeship

programs. >> thank you. that's a good lead into my next question which is that proposition e requires prevailing wage for construction workers on affordable housing. some training or qualifications for some workers, can you clarify how proposition e will help protect workers and how those requirements will be enforced? >> proposition e would provide an opportunity to grow our union workforce. it would provide a pathway for more workers to participate in state sponsored apprenticeship programs and skilled workers and the prevailing wage previsions will encourage high-quality wages and this prevision is endorsed by the san francisco building trades council as well as the san francisco labor council that are also equally committed to supporting high level worker protections and in san

francisco, we have an affordable housing delivery system that has a high leave of oversight and this prevision will have greater oversight into the development of these projects in order to protect those worker rights. >> thank you. same question to you, corey. >> thank you, so the labor previsions are really one of the interesting pieces to this, looking at the two competing measures and i'm happy the board of supervisors did recognize skilled ask training for housing. it doesn't make sense because the labor force is not there. i look at it two circles. we have one circle inside of a larger circle. we want union pools to built the housing and it's not going to be possible understand extra hearing board of supervisors measure. the other side to that is prop six d, the affordable homes requires prevailing wage and health care ask apprenticeship. that strikes the right balance of state of

the art top-of-the-line labor protection but at the same time making sure we utilize that larger labor pool so people actually get and get to work, are making the money that's needed to live in the housing they are building which is crucial and that's why we should an supporting affordable housing now. >> thank you. closing statements, anymore thoughts on proposition e, charlie? >> thank you so much for the opportunity. housing for families and workers really prioritizes real affordability to close the affordability gap, in order to address between the difference between developers and buildings and what san franciscans need. it is supported by many people and organizations across the city, i mentioned the building trades council and the san francisco labor council, the service workers union and teachers union and the firefighters union and san francisco democratic party, many community organizations, the san francisco (indiscernible) coalition. if we want to keep families in san

francisco, we want to keep vulnerable residents in their homes, we also want to jump start economic growth, we urge you to support proposition e, e for everyone. it will create the tools for san francisco to follow through on its prop this to deliver real affordable housing. >> thank you. corey, your thoughts. >> san francisco has a fannating choice ahead of us with two competing measures that sounds similar but at the end of the day, there's one key difference. affordable homes is going result in affordable house nothing san francisco. it's going to do that because it eliminating unnecessary hears and eliminating the board of supervisors to slowdown or blockhousing projects which they have done on numerous occasions and 469 stephenson, 450 official and 1800 sutter street which is a supportive housing proposal. the fact that these hearing exist in law suits could still exist if the competing

anti-housing board of supervisors measure passes and the wrong path forward. we need more housing and more affordable housing across our policy in san francisco and that's why the affordable home measure supported by scott wiener and london breed and the carpenters union and habitat for humanity and mission housing mission corporation and people build affordable house, no, the affordable homes measure will result in more affordable housing in san francisco. and if building more housing and more affordable housing is the goal, voters should vote yes on affordable homes now, proposition d, definitely going to build more houses and no on proposition e, the competing of the board of supervisors. >> thank you both for your time and your willingness to inform the public on these measures. >> thank you. >> we hope this discussion has been informative. for more

information about this and other ballot measures in the november election, please visit the department of elections website at sf elections dot org. remember, early voting is available at city hall starting on october 11th from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 8th. >> hello, i'm shannon with the league of women voters of san francisco. along with the league and sfgov tv, i'm here to

discuss proposition i, a ballot measure which will be before the voters on tuesday, november 8th. the city closed certain public streets to private motor vehicles reserving the streets as open space for recreational purposes. these closures weren abilitied in response to the covid-19 pandemic. in may, 2022, the board of supervisors at the golden gate and safety program. the closed portion of jfk drive and certain connector streets in golden gate park seven days a week to private motor vehicles and reserving the street as open space for recreational uses. these closures do not apply to emergency vehicles, official government vehicles, inter park transit shuttle buses and similar vehicles authorized to transport people as well as vehicles making deliveries to the museum. the great highway

between lincoln way and slope boulevard is closed to motor vehicles with limited exceptions from noon fridays to 6:00 a.m. mondays and on holidays. the city proposed to remove the great highway between slope boulevard and skyline boulevard to protect city infrastructure from damage caused by sea level rise. the city would redirect vehicles along skyline, sunset and slope boulevard. proposition i would restrict the city's ability to limit private vehicles used on jfk drive and certain connector streets in golden gate park and the great highway. proposition i would repeal the board's may 2022 ordinance and require the city to allow private motor vehicles to use jfk drive and certain connective streets in golden gate park at all times except from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on sundays and legal holidays

year-round as well as on saturdays and april through september. proposition i would require the city to allow motor use at all times on the great highway and not allow the city to remove the great highway between slope and skyline boulevard as proposed. for both the great highway and jfk drive along with the other affected streets in golden gate park, the city could temporarily limit access the roads for emergency for street repairs and community events. if proposition i passes, board may amend this ordinance by a 2/3 vote only if the amendments are consistent with the measure purposes or required by a court. if proposition i pass was more votes than proposition j, then proposition j would have no legal effect. if you vote yes, you want to

require the city to allow private motor vehicles on john f kennedy drive and connector streets in golden gate park at all times except from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on sundays and legal holidays year-round as well as on saturdays in april through september. you also want to require the city to allow motor vehicles in both directions at all times on the great highway and not allow the city to removing the great highway between slope and skyline boulevard as proposed. if you vote know, do -- if you vote no, you do not want to make these changes. i'm here with charge head, the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods and proponent of proposition i. welcome. >> thank you. >> we're joined by justin nguyen from the san francisco bicycle coalition. and an opponent of the measure. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you both for being here. i would like to start with

charles. why do you believe this proposition is so important? >> well, the title of the ordinance establishing proposition i says it all. it's access for all. i live near golden gate park, i can walk there any time. i'm lucky that way but golden gate park is central to the city and to all of our neighborhoods and all of our districts. it's difficult for me to imagine people walking or even biking from treasure island to come to golden gate park. same thing with hunters point and hendy park and candle stick, difficult. not impossible. president of the board shamal walton complained people of dis-- of district ten had no access to the park. we need to have the park accessible

to all. it is lotable that the rec. and park department wants to have everybody to have a park within ten minutes walking tame from their residence. but golden gate park is unique in the city and unique in the nation, i think in terms of what it offers in the way of museums and other attractions. i think all of us deserve access to the park as much as possible whether or not we can bike there, walk there or for our parents have to drive us there or we have elderly people that need to be driven there. >> thank you. justin? >> proposition i is a setback for california. it makes people less safe and steps back on client goals and fiscally irresponsible. the opening of the highway extension as deemed

by proposition i would put $80 million price tag to stop coast erosion. that's money that's going to be spent and simply for a road that has been designed to be closed next year. keeping the road open provides a mill stone over san francisco taxpayers and additionally, jfk drive continually be on a high corridor and it's in the top 13 percent of streets in the san francisco and it's 75% of traffic deaths. by reopening jfk drive to road users to driver specificallies, it puts our most volunteerable at risk and after the park is preserved, it's compromised. there's five hundred spots with the reproval of jfk, in addition to the 800 car (indiscernible). there's plenty of options for those to drive to san francisco and prop i is a solution looking for a problem and creating, let's say

san francisco won, we have a higher tax liability that's not great for our community. >> thank you. we're going to move into some questions and the first question will go to justin. so, how are proposition i addressed or not address the safety concerns that folks have for pedestrians and cyclists using golden gate park. >> it doesn't. simply put. we have had jfk open to cars since its existence. it proves cars and pedestrians and (indiscernible) and park was made for people not thoroughfare for cars and pieces of steel. we need to provide access for road users and even with the closure of jfk for cars, there's addition of ada handicap spots and conversations with making the affordable rates within the concourse. this is about maintaining equitable

transportation options for all road users. >> thank you. same question to you charles, what do you have to say about the safety around pedestrians and cyclists within golden gate park? >> i think that there's adequate protection for pedestrians and for bicyclists throughout the park. i think that it's difficult to, for me to say that bicycles posed no threat and i have a friend whose wheelchair bound and the one thing he fears the most is bicycles because they don't, usually they don't obey stop signs and that sort of thing so i think it's up to everyone who uses the park, boukists, pedestrians -- bicycles and pedestrians and drivers to maintain the rules of the road, to have constant vigilance and just to let people enjoy the park as they want to. >> thank you. second question

will go back to you charles, the southern portion of great highway from float boulevard to skyline boulevard is a planning and study to address the beach erosion and protection of wastewater infrastructure. how would proposition i address these plans to protect city infrastructure in shoreline? >> i think that prop i is not geared that much to that question but on the other hand through trailing legislation which would follow the adoption prop i. the board of supervisors and planning commission and the department of public works. became up with a plan to equitably address those issues. >> thank you. justin, same question to you. >> this proposition actually ties the hands of the city in creating a roadway and preserving a highway extension.

there have been plans to, four to five seawall and protect the sewage treatment plant but the roadway would change those plans and put an $80 million price tag that the city would have to fund to protect this roadway. by keeping this roadway open for cars, it really -- it forces the city to keep the street open that it has designed to close in light of climate change impacts. >> thank you. closing statements. any further thoughts about proposition i, we'll start with you charles? >> okay, thank you. again, (indiscernible) proposition i's main point, main aim is to open up the great highway and jfk drive in the areas that have been adhered to for shutdown or had closed reduce. it's to make the park more enjoyable to all visitors and all residents, open

to all and again, the title of the ordinance is access for all. that sum it's all up. >> thank you. justin? >> yeah. prop i name is a misnomer about access for all. it's access for cars. even with the closure of jfk two cars, just two entrances and five thousand parking spaces and it's surrounded for road users and it's important we preserve the green space for road users and for example, (indiscernible) to the park having 30% since jfk has been closed and showing the car closure increased the foot traffic in the park and to the exhibits. it concludes to the gardens and allows our

exhibitions that's world class to prosper, so this proposition is a step back and put the $80 million price tag that our taxpayers are paying for. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you for having us. >> thank you for educating the public about this closure. >> we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information about this and other ballot measures in the november election, please visit the department of elections website at sf elections dot orgful remember, early voting is available at city hall starting on october 11th from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 8th.

>> for us, we wish we had our queue and we created spaces that are active. >> food and drinks. there is a lot for a lot of folks and community. for us, it started back in 1966 and it was a diner

and where our ancestors gathered to connect. i think coffee and food is the very fabric of our community as well as we take care of each other. to have a pop-up in the tenderloin gives it so much meaning. >> we are always creating impactful meaning of the lives of the people, and once we create a space and focus on the most marginalized, you really include a space for everyone. coffee is so cultural for many communities and we have coffee of maria inspired by my grandmother from mexico. i have many many memories of sharing coffee with her late at night. so we carry that into everything

we do. currently we are on a journey that is going to open up the first brick and mortar in san francisco specifically in the tenderloin. we want to stay true to our ancestors in the tenderloin. so we are getting ready for that and getting ready for celebrating our anniversary. >> it has been well supported and well talked about in our community. that's why we are pushing it so much because that's how we started. very active community members. they give back to the community. support trends and give back and give a safe space for all. >> we also want to let folks know that if they want to be in a safe space, we have a pay it forward program that allows 20%

to get some funds for someone in need can come and get a cup of coffee, pastry and feel welcomed in our community. to be among our community, you are always welcome here. you don't have to buy anything or get anything, just be here and express yourself and be your authentic self and we will always take care of you. this meet

being is in person the city hall room 400 on sfgovtv and phone. we welcome public comment. public comment will be taken in person approximate remote boy call in. i ask that members of the audience keep it down. so we can continue the hearing. thank you. >> we welcome the public's participation during public comment. tell be taken in person and remote by call in. for each item the board will take first in person and then remote. the number is 415-655-0001 then access code: 2488 577 1731##