San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Reduced Zoning Restrictions for Affordable Housing and Educator Housing Projects (November 2019)

• Text of measure
  • Ballot question
• Path to the ballot
• See also
  • External links
  • Footnotes
• More
  • Local ballot measures
  • State ballot measures
  • Local politics

Proposition E: San Francisco Reduced Zoning Restrictions for Affordable Housing and Educator Housing Projects
The basics
Election date:
November 5, 2019
Status:
a Approved
Topic:
Local housing
Related articles
Local housing on the ballot November 5, 2019 ballot measures in California Local Ballot Measures Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot
See also
San Francisco, California

A measure to reduce zoning and approval requirements for affordable housing and educator housing projects was on the ballot for voters in San Francisco, California, on November 5, 2019. It was approved.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of allowing residential development consisting of 100% affordable housing or educator housing on public zoning districts, reducing the zoning requirements and restrictions for such projects, and requiring expedited reviews.

A no vote was a vote against this measure to reduce restrictions and requirements on 100% affordable housing and educator housing, thereby continuing to prevent any kind of residential development in public zoning districts and leaving the existing residential development and zoning rules in place.

Election results

San Francisco Proposition E
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		151,865	76.30%
No		47,175	23.70%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:

“

Shall the City amend the Planning Code to allow 100% Affordable Housing Projects and Educator Housing Projects in public zoning districts and to expedite approval of these projects?

”

Ballot simplification digest

The following summary of the measure was prepared by the office of the Ballot Simplification Committee:

“	The Way It Is Now: The City Planning Code applies different zoning rules to different neighborhoods in San Francisco. In residential zoning districts, the Planning Code allows residential buildings but regulates the size, height, density and other factors like the amount of yard space, open space and nonresidential space. Some types of buildings are subject to a conditional use authorization, which requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and consider certain factors before approving the project. In public zoning districts, the Planning Code allows government buildings, public structures, City plazas, parks and other similar uses but prohibits any residential buildings. The Planning Department reviews proposed projects to ensure that they meet zoning requirements. The Department must prioritize and expedite its review of proposed affordable housing projects. The Planning Code does not include specific zoning rules for residential projects dedicated to employees of the San Francisco Unified School District or the San Francisco Community College District. The Proposal: Proposition E is an ordinance that would amend the Planning Code to allow 100% Affordable Housing Projects and Educator Housing Projects in public zoning districts and to expedite City approval of these projects. Under Proposition E, 100% Affordable Housing and Educator Housing projects: Would be allowed in residential zoning districts and in public zoning districts, except on property used for parks; Would be located on lots that are at least 10,000 square feet; Could not demolish or replace existing residential units; Would be subject to less restrictive rules regarding size, ground-floor height, density and other factors than other residential buildings; Would allow a limited amount of mixed or commercial use that supports affordable housing; and Would not be subject to any conditional use restriction unless the restriction has been adopted by the voters. Proposition E would require a review of proposed 100% Affordable Housing and Educator Housing projects within 90 to 180 days, depending on the size of the project. Proposition E would also authorize the expedited review of the first 500 units of proposed Educator Housing. The Planning Department could administratively approve 100% Affordable and Educator Housing projects, without review by the Planning Commission. The Board of Supervisors could amend Proposition E by a two-thirds vote without voter approval. A "YES" Vote Means: 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 to expedite approval of these projects. A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make these changes.	”
—Ballot Simplification Committee

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support

Supporters

• San Francisco Mayor London Breed (D)
• San Francisco Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer (D)
• San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin (D)
• San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton (D)
• San Francisco Supervisor Matt Haney (D)
• San Francisco Democratic Party

Arguments

• London Breed, mayor of San Francisco, said, "Through this plan, we can open up more sites across our entire city for badly needed affordable and educator housing."

Official arguments

The official argument in support of Proposition E was authored by San Francisco Mayor London Breed, Board of Supervisors President Norman Yee, Supervisor Vallie Brown, Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer, Supervisor Matt Haney, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, Supervisor Gordon Mar, Supervisor Catherine Stefani, Supervisor Aaron Peskin, Supervisor Hillary Ronen, Supervisor Ahsha Safaí, and Supervisor Shamann Walton.

“ San Francisco is in a housing affordability crisis. Whenever we can, we must prioritize our public resources and our public land for the expedited construction of housing for low- to middle-income workers and families, including educators, who are too frequently leaving San Francisco and our public school system. Prop E’s comprehensive rezoning of public lands and large lots will make it easier and faster to build affordable housing and educator housing citywide, from the Bayview to the Richmond. Currently, there are hundreds of large underused lots across the city where housing is not currently permitted. By unlocking that land, Proposition E will create opportunities for affordable housing projects citywide, without the need for lengthy rezoning processes. This will speed up affordable housing construction, save city resources, and get more affordable housing built as a result. This initiative also helps build affordable housing for SFUSD and CCSF teachers, faculty, and staff, who are struggling to stay in the city where they work. The City has talked about building educator housing for years: this initiative will help provide early childhood educators, para-educators, tenured teachers, and school social workers with new opportunities to make their home in San Francisco. By rezoning land owned by the school district and City College, each unit built on that land can be dedicated and affordable for their teachers and staff struggling to stay in San Francisco. The Affordable Homes for Educators & Families NOW initiative (Prop E) works together with the Affordable Housing Bond (Prop A), creating a unique opportunity to address the two biggest barriers to affordable housing: limited land and funding. Please vote YES! ”

Opposition

Opponents

• Libertarian Party of San Francisco

Arguments

• Patrick Monette-Shaw, a columnist for the Westside Observer, said, "Proposition E claims it will “streamline” approval processes. The streamlining only involves eliminating the Planning Commission’s discretionary review processes and eliminating public hearings. It will eliminate neighborhood’s abilities and rights to appeal projects on public lands during open hearings."

Official arguments

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco authored the arguments against Proposition E.

“ In 2016, California’s respected Legislative Analyst’s Office published a report titled “Perspectives on Helping Low Income Californians Afford Housing” (https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345). Among this report’s conclusions: “In communities with inclusionary housing policies, most new market-rate construction is paired with construction of new affordable housing… Our analysis, however, finds that market rate housing construction appears to be associated with less displacement regardless of a community’s inclusionary housing policies. As with other Bay Area communities, in communities without inclusionary housing policies, displacement was more than twice as likely in low-income census tracts with limited market-rate housing construction than in low-income census tracts with high construction levels… The majority of low-income households receive little or no assistance and spend more than half of their income on housing. Practically speaking, expanding affordable housing programs to serve these households would be extremely challenging and prohibitively expensive…We suggest policy makers primarily focus on expanding efforts to encourage private housing development." (emphasis added) Should we listen to these experts, or trust political rainmakers like those on a Board of Supervisors whose policies have created and worsened the housing shortage? The tax credit program is plagued with pay-to-play fraud and giveaways to the “NonprofitIndustrial Complex”, while SF’s Housing Authority, whose politically-appointed leaders once included Jim Jones of Jonestown Massacre infamy, has long been a cesspool of corruption and mismanagement. The demand for low cost housing exists. Let’s empower people to supply it, and make market-rate housing truly affordable. Fixing the broken California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be a good start. Proposition E would make non-teaching SFUSD personnel eligible for subsidized housing, but not actual teachers at non-SFUSD schools who in many cases receive lower pay than government teachers. Do its proponents really care about helping teachers, or is this more about growing government? Vote NO on Proposition E. ”

Media editorial positions

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• San Francisco Examiner: "This measure would change the zone of land owned by public agencies across The City to allow for the development of affordable and teacher housing projects and streamline the approval process for such projects by reducing the need for some types of permits. While far from a magic bullet, it could save precious money and time and make some projects more likely to come to fruition."

Opposition

If you are aware of any media editorial positions in opposition to Proposition E, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Zoning restrictions and housing production in San Francisco

Going into the election, existing zoning requirements did not allow any residential development, including affordable and educator housing, on public zoning districts. All zoning restrictions were detailed in the San Francisco Planning Code.

The 2018 San Francisco Housing Needs and Rental Report detailed that affordable housing units composed 9 percent, or 33,000 units, of San Francisco's total housing stock. It also reported that the 2017 net production rate of new units of housing affordable to low or moderate incomes was approximately 1,400, and the net rate for market-rate units was approximately 3,000.

Estimated fiscal impact

The city controller stated that the measure would "result in a minimal reduction in government costs." The controller estimated that the zoning modifications would shorten the development and construction timelines, thereby lowering the costs of the projects.

Price of housing for educators

San Francisco Unified School District reported in 2019 that 64 percent of its teachers spent more than 30 percent of their income on rent, and an additional 15 percent spent more than half of their income. A study conducted by Trulia, a real estate listing company, reported that 0.7 percent of San Francisco teachers could afford to buy a home in the city in 2017.

Rents in California's largest cities

The following table outlines the median rents and rents as a share of income in California's 15 largest cities in 2010 and 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The median rent increased between 2010 and 2016 in all 15 cities, with the largest percentage increases in San Jose (26.1 percent) and San Francisco (22.9 percent).

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses a concept called rental burden as an economic welfare indicator. HUD defines the rate of rental burden as the percentage of households spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent each month. Of the 15 largest cities in California, Santa Ana had the highest rental burden at 64.8 percent and San Francisco had the lowest rental burden at 42.6 percent.

Median rents in California's 15 largest cities, 2010–2016
City	County	Population	2016 median rent	2010 median rent	2010–2016 increase	30%+ of income on rent
Los Angeles	Los Angeles	3,999,759	$1,241	$1,077	15.23%	61.20%
San Diego	San Diego	1,419,516	$1,427	$1,259	13.34%	54.30%
San Jose	Santa Clara	1,035,317	$1,689	$1,339	26.14%	53.30%
San Francisco	San Francisco	884,363	$1,632	$1,328	22.89%	42.60%
Fresno	Fresno	527,438	$901	$832	8.29%	61.50%
Sacramento	Sacramento	501,901	$1,057	$959	10.22%	53.90%
Long Beach	Los Angeles	469,450	$1,150	$1,033	11.33%	55.20%
Oakland	Alameda	425,195	$1,189	$1,000	18.90%	54.10%
Bakersfield	Kern	380,874	$1,005	$906	10.93%	53.10%
Anaheim	Orange	352,497	$1,402	$1,262	11.09%	62.10%
Santa Ana	Orange	334,136	$1,354	$1,231	9.99%	64.80%
Riverside	Riverside	327,728	$1,194	$1,092	9.34%	60.00%
Stockton	San Joaquin	310,496	$967	$917	5.45%	60.60%
Irvine	Orange	277,453	$1,997	$1,788	11.69%	52.80%
Chula Vista	San Diego	270,471	$1,351	$1,201	12.49%	61.40%

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through San Francisco's process by which the mayor or at least four members of the board of supervisors can propose a measure for the ballot. The process is governed by Article II, Section 2.113 of the San Francisco City Charter. This measure was put on the ballot by the following sponsoring board members:

• Sandra Lee Fewer,
• Aaron Peskin,
• Shamann Walton, and
• Matt Haney.

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2019
• Local housing ballot measures
• Local zoning, land use and development ballot measures
• San Francisco County measures

California

• November 5, 2019 measures in California
• Local ballot measures, California
• San Francisco, California

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• San Francisco Elections Office website