>> 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 moonly 7 percent of constructed 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 is this moratorium is like a farming spreading pest sides across the ranch and hoping the right crop come up, so i respect >> members of the public can you please show respect to supervisor christensen and let her finish comments. i want to open this up to public comment as soon as possibly to give you

a tuntd to speak, but i have to allow my colleagues the sfloor and a opportunity to speak >> i'll stop shortly. i don't want anyone in the room to think that i do not care about what is happening to you. i care about you and care about the people in my own district, but what i believe you dissever is a answer to the problems that face you and i don't think any of us confronted with a storm or illness or danger would dhooz sit back and do nothing. i think what we have to do is move forward and i believe that there is nothing that is stopping us now from doing the thingz we need to do. from building on land, buying more land, finding different ways to fund things, we can start on that today, yesterday, tomorrow. we can do that whether we ban all building in the mission or not, we can move

forward and i have found ways in my own district to do that in small ways mptd i'm looking for bigger ways and i want my own constituents to know that we, everyone och us understand this is a issue and that something needs to be done and understand that you dissever to be heard and wree listening to you, but i'm looking for a plan that will actually change things for all of us and just haven't seen that plan today >> thank you, supervisor kim >> thank you. to go back to the plan, there isn't going be a plan if we don't hit the pause button and institute the moratorium so we can study and write a plan and we'll talk about plans, we are wucking with the planning department now in a multiyear process for central south of market where we intend to build 33 percent afford able housing. you daent

do that in 45 days >> i can't hear you. can you speak into had microphone dectly >> i am. i don't know how to speak any louder. >> i can't hear so if i can't hear-i want to hear what you are saying. it's not your fault, but i-members of the public don't want to resess the meeting and want to be able tahere. if i'm hard of hearing and can't hear i'm sure there are others that can't hear and want to continue the meeting but can't hear. i ask for the sake of the ability to continue to meeting and if eye can speak in into the microphone. the noise from the outside is havingyfect on your ability to do that. i apologize >> i'll do the best i can. i don't know if i put the mic closer to my mouth. if we'll

talk about 45 days i think aerfb wn in the room we won't come windup a plan in 45 days. we are limited by process in the first [inaudible] we will need at least i a year to put the plan out and think the reason why the moratorium is important that we can't do a kudy without a moratorium is because the mission only has 13 sites left to develop on and that is very important to note. the second thing, the legislation isn't just about protecting land for affordable housing t is aults about protecting land for industrial jobs. the eastern neighborhood rezoning that the board passed at the end of 2008 was designed to do 2 things, one, increase thumouchbts of affordable house

which we frailed and preserve production distribution and repair space [inaudible] it is not just about building affordable housing, it is fwt protecting jobs to the residence can afford to live in the housing we build. the pdr spaces provide squlaubs and are critical to the arts communityment in the mission like the south of market many artist work in the pdr spaces. planning tells us while 24 loss of pdr in the sit a is 2.2 percent the rate of loss in the mission is 12.3 percent and that just takes into account permitted conversion not illegal conversions which we know are ram utthroughout the city. last year i introduced

pdr conversion supported by the board twice. the first for 45 days and the second extend today a eryoo. we also identified a need to pause the rapid conversion rate in the south of market of the pdr spaces to lexerary housing and office. the issue of arts, cultural performance space being displaced sularming. nob nub stodeio 17, south space, dance mission theater are evicted or under threat of eviction. we need a plan to retain and support the institution and insure we create a environment where the arts can continue to thrive and expand. we need a plan with tools and resource squz funding to do that. i think everyone in the board agrees with that, i think where we disgrie is how to make it happen. if there

were large sites available i would say move forward with development while we study this, but there isn't that much valuable land in place. i also want to talk about supply side economics something that has come up a couple times on the board. unchecked luxury housing doesn't build affordable housing only building affordable housing produces affordsable housing. we vasister city in texas and austin that experiences unprecedented growth similar to san francisco and has very little planning regulations. unchecked production of housing in austin should be building affordable housing based on the theories we hear in san francisco yet austin is displacing low income working class luteenee community alt the same rate we are in san francisco. we need a plan, tools, regulation in place. yes, we should have done it years ago and thatd isn't a exkoos to not do it today. i

want foobrink up a final point. 2 colleagues that oppose the moratorium today blot up building more housing. let's not put a moratorium in their districts as well. [inaudible] 341 cor bet was property slated to build housing for formally homeless people as written by supervisor [inaudible] and passed by the board. that land is preserved asopeb space, essentially moratorium. fran cyst co reservoir, 4 acres of public lay owned space will not see housing biltd on the site market rate or affordable preserved as open space so if that is what will work on the board then rezeen the 13 parcels as p and make them open space >> thank you supervisor kim.

supervisor avalos >> thank you. i will be very very brief. i just want to make sure there is a few things said. the effort to build the type of housing in the mission we are calling for now has been in existence for decades. it started in the scith's i know it goes back that far, but i'll go back 15 years when the work that was done in the mission district created a pause on work loft developments not just in the mission but all over the city and helped to transform what happens at the board of supervisors for about a decades because quhauf of run away development unsan francisco. we actually have not worked hard noof create the tools to build affordable housing. we actually passed in 2012 the housing trust fund. tfs not as sthraung strong as it could be. we passed alon