make a motion to continue to may 6th. kim has made a motion to continue this item to may 6th. is there a seconded. seconded by yee. >> we would recommend that the board open the hearing, allow any public comment from anyone who may be here today who wants to speak today and continue the hearing as open without closing it. >> before we continue, let me open up to public comment in case anyone wants to make comment on the item today. >> there might be some day you'll find this parcel map is wrong, but to my only reign, i'll follow the sun. some day, you might find this parcel map is the one, but

tomorrow may city reign, so we'll follow the sun. >> thank you, anyone else for public comment for this item. seeing none, public item is closed. on a motion to continue, can we do -- >> there's no public comment today, but the hearing will remain open until the date of continuance. >> my apologies. so i'm not going to close the hearing. the hearing will remain open. >> that was my motion. my motion was to continue this hearing as open. >> let me rephrase it. we're going to keep this hearing open until the six of may. that should be the case without objection. with that, why don't we go to role call. >> supervisor farrell. >> supervisor kim.

>> thank you. >> so, with the housing affordability that has become the discussion of the year here in san francisco, how affordable is this city for our existing residents and new residents. we want to introduce legislation today. it's great importance that has taken every week of our woerd discussions as we talk about legislation such as increasing relocation payments, figuring out ways to close a loophole at the state level and i want to acknowledge that our mayor is speaking and testified personally on behalf of informing the state. it was a piece of discussion in last week's sequa appeal and when we're talking about the loss of rent control here. creating and protecting affordable housing in this boom cycle of our local on policy is a question that our residents are demanding city

hall should answer. we should have growth without displacing residents. part of the answer is in the production of housing to meet the job growth. district 6 absorbed this construction, it begs the question of who are we building for. there's been a spectacular production of housing we have seen over the last six years, and just to produce the data of what this housing production has produced, what we have found is that between 2007 and 2013, we've produced 29,894 housing and we're reading 90 percent of our housing goal which is 31,000. of the units we have built, 23,382 have been for above moderate income individuals. those are making above 120 percent percent.

we're meeting 189 percent of this need with a new construction we're seeing in san francisco. meanwhile, we built 2,000. these are folks that are making below 50 percent. what we have learned from this current production, which has been unprecedented in our city is housing production alone isn't working to prevent the displacement of our resident or assuring the affordable for everyone. in the largest construction boom that we have seen as stated by john ram, we're learning without policy making the result is we are not building housing for everyone. district six is ground zero for new development and we're at risk at becoming a district and city

that is building housing that is unaffordable for san franciscans. we're trying to have market payment when we go out of line. it's one we have been reaching in district 6. keep in mind, a regional housing goal is 60 percent. 60 percent should be built for those making between zero and 120 percent ami. our legislation is proposing a floor. we would like to see a floor that meets our production which is 30 percent. these are the four main goals of the legislation that i'm choosing today. our first goal is to encourage a balance approach to the construction and approval of housing.

affordable housing are limited. 29 units of housing were producing in district 6. only 29 percent of these housing units were affordable. the current sale price that we're seeing is $800,000 and the medium for one bedroom is $3,000. it's beyond the reach of our most residents. they access housing through the affordable housing programming, are there only buyable housing approach. we have the income character of our district. district has the highest number under the poverty line. the city wide average is 13 percent. we also have the lowest household average income at

roughly 38,000, but we're finding in district 6 is we have many low income or high income households. 56 percent of our residents live where the house come is less than 50 percent of san francisco ami and the rest lives in the track where the income is from 122 percent to 166 percent of the area income. we clearly need to grow housing for the middle in our district. our third goal to encourage the deployment of resources and policies to insure we're meeting a baseline affordable ho a broad range of income for families and individuals from zero to 120 ami. meeting this will -- our office for the past three years, but mr. are in -- but particular in the last four

months, we have had listening sessions with neighborhood activist so we can build more affordable housing. developers with technical know how are coming to the table with real solutions and neighborhood activist describing the impact that the lack of affordable housing is creating on the ground. this is not about an us verses them. this is about a common goal that we share that diverse san francisco for all is a vision that we would all like to see. there's a real need for affordable housing production. we can't wait for a future date or rely that -- on this board, i have been a strong supporter of development and growth. i'm finding that we have to insure that we're building a baseline of affordable for everyone else. it must be and

should be -- it should not be based on hope, but based on intention. this legislation will give the public a way to participate in the planning process around housing affordability and equity issues in a way to promote growth. it will be triggered when we're out of balance. any developments that are 100 percent affordable will be excluded from this policy. i want to thank my co-sponsors, supervisor avalos, campos and mar and i look forward to working with my board colleague s this legislation. i support the mayor's goal of 30 percent affordable housing production by 2020 and i want to thank him for his leadership. may people believe the solution to displacement is building more housing. our

legislation assures they'll be a minimum built for or average resident. i want to welcome folks to a forum that will be put on by the stakeholders that help write this which will take place thursday 5:30 from the lgb center. second, i'm introducing a hearing today on below market rate units. we have encouraged developers to built bmr to add to our housing stock. bmr is the best and the most desirable ways that developers can comply with inclusionary mandate, but some bmr either rental or ownership are burdened by -- we should be doing all that we can to help tenants

and we should not let arbitrary create -- we need support from the very start of the bmr application. here are the problems we've been hearing from our constituents. non uniform policies and procedures set by developers, unequal treatment of bmr units and violations of our sanctuary city ordinance. the first example is one i spoke about a few months ago. christopher and his family were homeless and they won the lottery but were disqualified because their credit score which was curable with assistant from our non profit

was slightly below the minimum credit set by that developer. these credit score minimums are set arbitrary and are not uniformed throughout the city. we were not able to win this, duffy who is our chief of our home office co-signed so this family could move in. that's not how we should solve these problems. we should set a minimum credit score. another family won the lottery at ava directly across the street. they were qualified, but their eligibility criteria which they did not share with mow included immigration status requirement requiring visa documentation. this is a family who have lived in the tenderloin who won't be able to move into ava because they don't have the documentation they need. and this is in clear and violation of our city ordinance. another

one was disqualified because she didn't pay child support years ago. this was before the passage of our legislation. owners were finding -- they're not getting renovated and others are getting renovated. we have another resident of vietnamese who purchased a bmr and he lost his job but he was able to make all of his payments from 2000 and 2005 and he drained all of his resources. according to mow, his home and was subsidized by the city. wells fargo soed the

property at an auction to an investor at market rate. these are legally binding restrictions on the resales of bmr. mo should have been sold him home. they should have addressed this and helping him with an english proficient to apply and obtain a loan modification through wells fargo. for these reasons today, i'm submitting a hearing request for the policies and procedures. we need to protect the housing. sunday streets will take place on tenderloin.

we'll be opening our first healthy corner store legislation store that was led by supervisor mar. we have 72 liquor stores and we're exciting that one is converting to a healthy store. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> mar. thank you madam clerk. >> it's has been hard to concentrate. i wanted to say on monday, i'll work with senior organizations with a rally to advocate for free muni for low income senior and disabilities so that's on monday and wednesday, an important hearing on the funding of san francisco bike plan before the budget

committee. i'm calling today for a hearing on commuter shutter vehicle and buses after the issue of the budget and analyst report by fred bruso and the others on the environmental and housing infrastructure impacts of these shuttles. last week in the board's meeting, there was a debate on the impacts of these commuter shuters, -- shuttles, but they should be looked at careful. ly. i wanted to -- the reporter lamb from yesterday highlighted the public's response to the shuttles. i think he referred to the survey that was done, i believe over

the past few weeks, but he pointed out that 2/3 of san francisco, and 60 percent said their view is wealthy tech workers are pushing out others and making the city more an inclusive city and i think the sentiments are out there and taking a look at goggle buses and other types of shuttles is really critical. i think serious questions remain on how san francisco an impacted by the shuttles. impacted every one of us especially those who live in the city. questions about the increase pollution, i know supervisor avalos and i both sit on the bay area management board and it impacts on our muni buses and these transit stops and impacts around bike and

pedestrian safety and cost and infrastructure as well. the 36 page report on behalf of the budget and legislative analyst, supervisor campos raised good questions during the appeal hearing last week, but i think the 36 page reports includes about eight policy recommendation would i like looked at more carefully. the budget and legislation took the time to consider budgets that go beyond the environmental quality actor sequa and the report concludes we have a responsibility to review these suggestions. i think on page 35 of the report, one of the recommendations and it may not be one that's pursued, but it could be is that san francisco board of supervisors submit to the voters a ballot measure to propose a special tax on shuttle bus to raise funds to

improve public transportation services to road and fund muni for youth after fiscal year 15-16. i like recommendation like those. also the report documented problems with the mta's pilot program. one part from the report and i'll quote from it, just because the shuttle provides transit benefits, that doesn't mean we shouldn't mitigate their harm. i'm calling for this hearing for more review and discuss these recommendations and the findings of the report. we're looking for ways to improve the pilot program and programs that the city may create. we want to hold private companies especially tech and bio tech companies accountable to do their part in environmental harm. there's

more work to be done and much more analysis that is needed as we regulate these shuttles and make them work for every san franciscan. i wanted to announce that walk sff is once again doing its annual walk to workday. i'll be participating this friday on april 11th. i'm guessing that many of my colleagues will be participating as well. so this friday, it's a celebration of one of america's most walkable cities, san francisco. if you want to find out where different activities are going on in your districts, walksff.org has information. in the richmond district, me and others will meet at the cafe about a block off of folto and meeting at 7:45 a.m. to walk to different transit stops. much of us should walk

from the civic center and it should be a good walk. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam clerk. so colleagues, i want to say a few things. first, i'm introducing legislation which i had discussed a few weeks ago when we submitted a draft to close a loophole that we saw recently where someone pulled a stunt to get himself designated as the official owe -- opponent for a measure and he was a supporter and this stunt was made possible because we don't place any limits on the number of arguments that you can -- the one person can submit as either to be an official proponents of a measure. in this situation he submitted 25 almost identical ballots out of the 26

and got himself selected. fortunately due to some great work by the city attorney and the department of election, he was able to withdraw that argument and we have someone who was opposed as the official opponent. this legislation will allow those to submit one argument to be the proponents and no more multiple argument. everyone gets to load one and then there's a lottery and everyone is treated fairly and equally and we'll help to reduce gaining of the system. nothing we'll do will eliminate the system. this is the major loophole we're closing. the second thing the legislation will do is require everyone -- anyone who submits a proposed opponent or proponents official argument so sign an

affidavit swearing that they're not a paid advocate of the position. colleagues, i think it will help us tighten up this process and make it more fair and transparent. i'm submitting two hearing request today. the first which i'm joined by supervisor campos and supervisor chiu as co-sponsors, it's a hearing on the state of our hiv care and prevention budget. and most significantly what cuts we can expect from the federal government, colleagues, auz you may recall over the last three years, we experienced something in the amount of $20 million from cuts from the federal government to our hiv program and cdc prevention programs. and we have thanks to all of you and to the mayor, every penny of those cuts locally, we

anticipate another $2.7 million of cuts from the district and i and others are prioritizing making sure we keep those safety net in fact for those living with the disease and to make sure that we keep reducing infection rates in san francisco and don't go back to the bad old days. we'll be hearing from our city attorney and advocates working on this issue. i'm submitting a hearing request relating to the -- the board of supervisors passed legislations that i updated articles for districts and landmarks. and the planning department was directed to move forward to craft and compile san francisco local interpretations of the secretary of interior standards, to make

sure that we are -- that we have codified standards in place that are tailored to the needs of san francisco and not the monuments virginia which is held secretary of interior standards basically started. today, those local interpretations have not been issued so we'll have the planning department to report why they haven't been issued and what is happening to make sure they're approved in the future. i'll ask the planning department to report on the status of consideration of the recommendations made last year in a joint report by spur and san francisco architectural heritage about ways to improve the planning project around san francisco. so i look forward to that discussion and to hearing all the great things that the planning department is working on that i'm sure we're going to hear soon. the rest i'll

submit. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you madam clerk. i wanted to wish everybody well for the week of the young child. this is a week in which nationally we celebrate the young child, and for those who are planning to walk to work on friday and want to get some exercise before that to make sure that you can make the walk, i would invite all of you to join us in front of city hall steps here on poke on thursday joining over 400 people from zero -- they'll advocate for quality services that they're participating and many are on the list to get into

programs especially those who are low income. like i said, if you want to practice walking and having a bunch of little kids around you, please join us. also on sunday, if anybody is available, we're going to be recognizing over 200 people from the early education care field and that's sunday. >> thank you supervisor yee. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you madam clerk. i have a hearing on police of forces. it involves officer involved shooting on barrel hill. a young person who i knew named alice and he

was 28 years old. there was use of force, one on camera by a resident. a member of the public showing a police officer taking his hand off his night stick, making a fist and then punching someone. you couldn't see who was on the ground, being held on ground by three police officers. it shows that this happens from time to time and there's a great deal of work we need to have to have an effective police program and build trust between members of the public and the police department. it was really surprising because these events were people who were victims where people i knew and it makes me feel how wide spread the problem can be.

fundamental to our policing effort is making sure there's real trust that can be developed and these incidents erode that trust. police mounted cameras are some of the fastest innovations -- growing innovations in law enforcement, and there are major cities around the country that are implementing body cameras, new york, los angeles, denver, indianapolis, san diego and new orleans. this practice is gaining support both among law enforcement and police watch dog groups as well. many police support these cameras because they can help protect police officers against false accusations, watch dog groups support police body cameras because they can reduce incidents of police misconduct. the aclu support it because it allows the public monitoring of the government instead of the other way around. in rialto california, they worked

with cambridge to do a study of the effectiveness on officer camera. the use of force has decreased by 59 percent when the body cameras in space. the complaints decreased by 85 percent. just to commute with chief today, he says he's working to equip plain clothed officer 85 percent. just to commute with chief today, he says he's working to equip plain clothed officer with cameras, but he says funding it is cost prohibitive. i'm calling for a hearing to review this issue. and in addition to the police department, i'm requesting that the controller help with conducting a cost benefit analysis to compare the cost of the cameras with potential savings from reduced citizens complaints and the lawsuits. i'm requesting to have