club here today. >> one second. supervisor campos. >> thank you very much. i want to say that i understand sthra great deal of passion, but i would ask everyone on both sides to respect this process and the fact is that for members of our community whatever side you are on to be able to speak we are going have to listen and not interrupt so in that spirit i ask whatever your views are, let people have their say so others can do the same >> thank you. supervisor wiener >> thank you madam president. supervisor campos and i had a very nice conversation on the radio fry day and we started by talking about the significant common ground that the 2 of us have after 22 years of friendship as well as that i

think the common ground in the community because i think there is a lot more that brings us together than kwidez us. i think we are in agreement that there is not just a housing crisis but a absolutely severe housing crisis that threatens the fabric of the sit a and the mission is absolutely severely impacted by there crisis rkss but it isn't just the mission rbs it is a lot of different neighborhoodss in district 9 in what i represent and other parts of the city. it isn't just in the last few years. i have been in the city in the cast fronearly 20 years and i remember the last time we had a very very horrible crisis that impacted the mission and castro and other neighborhoods. unfonchinately this isn't new. we have had a long term problem with the cost of housing in this city with the need to keep people stable nin housing and

for the lack of affordsable housing in the city and we haven't done enough to build affordable housing and quickly enough and kbet it delivered and get the residence into the housing and need to do more. that isn't just true today, it was true 5 and 10 and 15 years gow and 30 years ago. we have not done enough and need to do more and think we are in agreement with that. we need to make sure we ate enough housing for the city. we have grown by all most 100 thousand people in the last 10 year jz not created enough housing to house that level of population grouth and it won't change, we will grow by another 150 thousand people in the coming decades and if you think it is bad today, if we don't get our act together when it comes to housing possibly and creating housing opportunities in the sate, today will look tame

compared to 10 or 20 years from now. i wish the conversation about acquiring sites in the mission had been happening 5, 6, 7 years ago, but better late than never and have to get it together. i support making sure etha that we build more affordable housing in the mission and know supervisor campos will support that same effort in the castro and throughout the city. we need to make sure we move forwards, smarth housing policy. supervisor christensen thank you for introducing your legislation today to allow rent control accesserary unit in districtly. we need to provide strong man dates and incentives to admore and more affordable yoounts into the development to make sure we create affordable housing that way. there is a lot we can do productively to

create all sorts of new housing, in law units, affordability units, group and student housing, every housing in the city and vooto keep up the momentum to do that. a moratorium isn't a way to get that done. this moratorium won't stop single eviction, it is not going to build a single unit of affordable housing and inl fact it will pour fuel on the fire. last year there was 75 units och housing binlt the mission. 500 yubts in the last 5 years. that is on average 100 units of housing built each year in the mission so to suggest that there is even if the consofept trickle down housing were real, which it isn't, when you build 75 units

last year that doesn't make any sense. very very little housing of any type has been built in the mission and that is a significant part of the problem. we need more affordable housing and more in-law units and more housing of all varieties. if i thought that this moratorium was going to keep people stable in their housing and create more affordable housing i would be supporting tin a heart beat, but it is not. it is only going to undermine our efforts to create funding for affordable housing and build affordable units and i also just want to say that yes, under state law this has to start as a 45 day moratorium, but if this passes today i imagine next week or the weekarve supervisor campos will introduce legislation to extend it. 2 years is the maximum under state law, but there a lot of different way tooz

effectively have a moratorium and we'll see this goy on and on. activists in other neighborhoods are can and frg the moratorium to be expanded to their neighborhood so let's not pretend this is just 4 foiv days. supervisor compose referred to this several time squz think it is a very very inaccurate comparison, the curona site situation rbs but now that this is the 5 or 6 or 7 time to talk about it i want to respond to thmpt 2 situation yz absolutely nothing to do with each other. in curona heights we didn't ban anything. people were turning 1 thousand square foot homes into 7 thousand sknair foot single family homes. we didn't even ban that. we said you need

conditional use if you do that. that conditional use is aurlds required for each and every project in the mission. to compare monster home legislation to say we'll put a moratorium on housing, one has nuths toog do with the other. i also in firm thofz nokez of deference, yes, we do provide deference to the fellow supervisors particularly when they are smaller things they are doing, but we don't always provide deference to other supervisors when it is a important issue of public policy and i can't think of supermore significant than a moratorium on the creation of housing during a crise. supervisor farrell will attest that non wuns but 2 situations there were projects in his district that this board of supervisors supported over objection including supervisor campos and me. the park mur sed project in supervisors

[inaudible] that was one project in a supervisor district 5 members of the board including supervisor campos voted against the district supervisor in his own district. in my own district there was legislation to take a small piece of open space in [inaudible] and preserve it as open space. how can you not defer to a district supervisor. 5 members of the board including supervisor campos vaeted against #3450e on that legislation thmpt 1050 vuligiousry project, a 12 unit project. 5 member thofz board of supervisor including supervisor campos voted against my support for that project. i can go on and on and on. let's let go of the issue of you have to how blindly defer to other supervisors mpt when a supervisor is doing something in their district you

disagroowith, we are elected to make our own independent policy judgment but what is best for the city and my view, a moratorium is not the right approach to housing, it is going to take us in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to housing in san francisco >> thank you. supervisor mar >> . it you please remove the signs >> thank you. with all due respect supervisor wean, u if we follow your logic and argument we will see a epicly racially qulensed mission district that luteena and chicano and low income are pushed out of. supervisor campos used the analogy of a water. [inaudible] >> i just can't hear you because we keep having interruptions from the audience

and just want to ask members of the audience to please--we could sit here all day and wit for you to say what you want to say or you can wait for a opportunity to sfeek and have a chance to speak. thank you revb-round brown. supervisor map >> thank you president breed. with a drought water comes back with rain. with a displacement and housing crisis

people don't come back. we know about manila town and international hotel from the 70's. today from the budget analyst report and other reports in 48 hill jz other pupications we know that over 8 thousand latinos have been pushed from the mission inch the last 10 years. 57 thousand people is a huge percentage but if you look at the latino population is more alarming. with the mission antedisplacement coalition many of the coalitions today are active and the displacement is adding on to the displacement of latinos and others from the 90's. i also call this a ethnic clensing because we know that in the past decades the african american population has been pushed out with unchecked out migration that left with the lowest number of african

americans in the sate. we see the same clensing with latinos and chicanos and have to learn from those mistakes. i think that supervisor campos and mission coalition moratorium is strategic and seeking to accomplish a tangible and necessary goal. the purchase of 13 parcels and think hillary roanen showed the analysis on which the city developing housing for middle and low income people. athank you for harvey roads and the budget annist. if each of the 13 sites are developed to the maximum as supervisor campos missioned, we wid yield 850 afford nl units. we need to do more, but that is a improve over what supervisor wean is proposing. i think now is the

time that the mission coalition is acting with allies from other neighborhoods to look at potential asfordable housing sites not just in the mission but throughout the city and hope we look at the lessens learned from the mission district displacement. i think the moratorium is in line with proposition k which we passed 33 percent and also the 50 percent goal of the 30 thousand new and rehabilitationed affordable units by 2020 relying on free market and as some colleagues may vote against the urgency ordinance today, if we rely on market forces our predicament will mean seniors and middle income and seniors and artist will be pushed out thocity like the african american community and

luteenees and chicano. i stand in sal darely in the mission district and proceed to support the moore torierium. we need to continue this process. if we have to take to had ballot and if the board doesn't pass the ordinances. as supervisor campos mentioned this is about saving the mission district and san francisco and the heart and soul oaf our city. >> thank you supervisor mar. supervisor yee >> thank you president breed. i guess i can say i have been in san francisco theest of my colleagues and have seen a lot of changes, but i have seen rapid change i have never seen. i have seen cast ree and north

beach change. it is scarely because what is happening is the city approved policies and development for the last decades which has put us in this position. whether it is market rate driven that is what happens and the solutions we keep having are the same old solutions that ledtuse where we are today. it didn't work for some populations and one of the reasons i want to support this is i basically not looking at oneding beyaurnd 45 days, but we need to take a step back, look at the situation and if people really serious, 45 days people can come up with solutions. i believe that supervisor campos with his community can do this and that is why i will support this

legislation. >> thank you supervisor yee. supervisor farrell >> thank you president breed. so, i want to echo some of the sentiment supervisor yee mentioned. we have been in san francisco for the same amount of years. the city is going through a lot of change and to the point of where we are today is i do agree with the subject and the quensh of policy we had for decades in san francisco and from my perspectative isn't building enough housing to deal with the crisis we have today. i will vote no on the moratorium today. i want to start by saying that i very much respect supervisor campos and we have worked together on a number of pieces of legislation around housing in san francisco and do respect despite the hissing organizations and advocates that are here to support it. on this policy we are not on

the same page. the proponentss talked about [inaudible] this isn't a 45 day stop. there is a proposal for 18 month continuance and we are talking about 2 years and way to do it longer. also, this crisis didn't start just a few weeks ago. our housing crisis started quite a while ago. to say in 45 days we will come up with a solution is disengen ws. if it was so spornt which is t is we should have started this conversation years ago. to say 45 dayicize the ends all be all and we'll come up a solution a disengine ws. this is talked abouts a long term issue. i find it hilarious i get e-mails

from random praurcht owns in the mission district thanking for me raising their praurnt values during this conversation and love isue. this moratorium will cause housing price jz property values increase. we'll lose out on public resources that funds affordable housing in the city. it will effect housing that are nob nab across san francisco that are not 100 percent affordable. again, i understand the intention bethinedpologist, but i do believe this the wrong approach we should take. the decision here at inboard whether at the mission or acrosssuch and have to realize this isn't s a city wide policy and decision we are making here. we as a board should vote kbaens this short sided policy. the policy will give

the city time to plan to punchs identified parlsals for affordable housing, a great goal, but most of the sites identifyred loaned by private lands owners. what is to say they are going to be willing to set sell to the it city to create affordable housing? sthr snow guarantee to force them to sell their property and it is a false assumption and results inl having no plan in place accept for a pause. a pause we could have talked about years ego if we thought 45 days would have a cure. there is no fundsing source for public prive td or oatwise that covers the cost of affordable housing. i think mayors lee leadership in and the 250 [inaudible] housing phaund step in the direction but find the piece missing when he talks

about a moratorium in the mission for 45 days or 18 months or however long. market rate housing in san francisco is stied to the production of affordable housing. we can discuss whether the percentage on site or new market rate development or inlieu fees are appropriate to cover affordable housing across san francisco, but stopping market rate construction the facts are you directly take away from one of the primary resources the city has over 100 million dollars to create affordable housing. we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. the program is funded to the production of thousands of affordable housing units as supervisor wiener said. we have a crisis in san francisco. a lot of discussion is made over the past few month whether supply and demand work

in san francisco. we share a lot of amazing values in san francisco, butt thadoesn't mean supply and demand and other market forces don't apply. we haven't built enough housing and can't deal with the housing crisis we have today. by stopping new housing to me is simply a step in the wrong direction and only going to exaszer bait the issue. in previous years the mayor and board came together on a number of different things e. we created the affordable housing trust fungd. we passed investment and anteeviction control and displacement aerft through the citys budget process that i have been involved with. now we are talking about a 250 million dollar affordable housing bond in november. we are doing thing tooz address the crisis. we have been work together to building more housing

especially affordable housing but this will take years of dedication funding and legislation. stopping now housing from coming on the market is exactly the wrong approach in san francisco but what i do fine solace in is we agree need more affordsable housing in the city and for the long term this is the wrong one >> thank you supervisor fairbl. before we move on i just want to check with the other 2 supervisors on the roster, we haven't had the opportunity to hear public comment. i know other members of the board would like to speak so if you want to speak before public comment i'm happy to acknowledge you but would like to open it up as quickly as possibly to public com. supervisor avalos >> i'll be very brief to fr public comment to go next. i want to thank supervisor campos

for bringing forward this issue of the moratorium. this is not for visor campos's issue, this is not defer to supervisor campos but actually deferring to the mission district community who call frd the moratorium and think we have to make a distinction between supporting a superizers wishes and a community that has come in strength and numbers today >> supervisor christensen jrfxz we have been doing a lot of research trying to understand what exactly the conditionerize because we heard a lot of numbers throun around and different sets of figures and couldn't substantiate the claims. the other thing is trying to understand how we goat goat get to where we are and have members from the

planning department. i would thrike ask them a few questions so all of us here have a little idea about how we got to where we are. who is speaking on behalf the department? >> supervisor christensen how long do you think this will take? >> i understand, do you want me it hold this until later? >> if you can get to the questions and be as brief as possibly >> i totally understand. we vaplan in effect in the mission. i want to understand where that plan came from, who approved it and how we got here. i would like to understand how we are going to actually sauv the problem these people came here to talk about. how can we get more affordable housing to the mission >> director rand

>> yes, i understand you are asking about the plan itself? >> the way things have gone in the mission developed over time. there is a certain guideline in place and where did that guideline come from and are we adhering flaum kbideline. everyones goal here, all my fellow supervisors and everyone in the audience, the goal is to provide more affordable housing in the mission, how can we best do that >> i think the plan that you are referic to is the mission area plan which is a part sthof eastern neighborhood plans. that was adopted in #2w0 08 and twept 09. it goes back to 2001 when the planning commission authorized the department and asked them to carry out the planning study. it looks at

housing development and pdr control jz a number of issues and established a long term plan >> director rand, i can't hear, so i think we are going to need to probably resess the meeting until we are able to hear. i can't hear. >> madam president. i would be willing to hold my comments until after public testimony if that helps >> okay >> supervisor kim. at this time we'll open to public comsqunt start with those who are >> i'm sorry supervisor kim >> thank you. just want to make a couple comments as well along with my colleagues. the first thing i want to say is this is not about a moratorium,

this is about a plan. this is about taking the time to develop a plan to baild truly mixed income neighborhood that feels it is identity is being threatened and we are not doing it. i was shocked when i learned months goy this moratorium was introduced to the board and only 7 percenstructed projects rufordable to the the residence of san francisco. i said this earlier today, 60 percent of san francisco resident qualify for affordable housing. as supervisor mar medicationed in november voters passed proposition k stating that at least 1/3 of new housing should be affordable to 60 percent of residence in san francisco. i do agree with supervisor campos that every neighborhood is different. in the south of market we are close to meeting this goal of 33 percent. we are building a 30 percent affordable and new pipeline constructed. this makes the

neighborhood vastly different from the mission. we have plans put in place, ewe were lucky to use redevelopment as a tool committing 50 percent of tax inkriment to build affordable housing and had strong institution with decades of land use knowledge to insure the community has smarts to protect housing and build affordsable housing. in the mission we only 13 sites left in the mission we can insure e >> basely supervisor christian yielded the floor because she thought we were opening to public comment and since we didn't open to public comment i need to return to spl visor christensen. can you finish please for visor christensen? i'll bring the floor back to you

>> in the 5 months i have been supervirez, i stopped a target on polk street that would hurt the small business and in negotiation with 3 building developers to try to make those projects more suitable for the neighborhood andbroid the type of affordable housing we want. i work with the mta to coordinate project on public safety. the is my understand that is as supervisors what we do. what is happening in 24 mission didn't happen over night. it happened over years and years and years. there was a plan, if that plan was not turning out the way people expected there have been numerous opportunities along the way to adjust it. that is what we do. i feel deeply for the people in the mission that are being buffeted by change. i see it in my district and

talk would advoicate squz residence concerned about what is hahappening. what i do not see today is a path that is going to achieve what they want. i thought long and hard about this 45 day moratorium and up until this morning my plan was to support it not because i thought it would solve the problem at hand, but because i believe these people dissever recognition that we hear they are concerned and that we know something must be done about it, but what we need is a plan that will build on the lots already set aside in the mission for affordable housing mpt we need a plan that will require more lands for affordable housing. we need a plan to fund all this sknr a way to pay for these things. none of those plans exist in this #340ratorium. my concern