>> 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.