thank you >> thank you supervieer cohen. supervisor farrell >> submit >> madam president that concludes the roll claul for introduction >> at this time weal rego to the 3 p.m. special order. can you call the 3 p.m. special order >> iletm 38 is a hearing approved by the board on may 19 by motion m 1587 to consider a urgency ordinance [inaudible] permit to demolx convert or nob number result in gain or loss of 5 or more units or [inaudible] create exception for [inaudible] south side of tw 20 [inaudible] >> okay, so at this time

supervisor campos do you have opening remarks? >> thank you madam president. i want to begin by thanking the members of the public who have come out to city hall today on all sides of the issue. people in the chamber, the people in the overflow room, i know there are a number of people standing in line and it was difficult to get into city hall today. as a representative of district 9 which includes the mission i want to thank the residence of that neighborhood who came oit in full force over the last few days. it has been one of the most moving experiences i had asy lected afilshz. i have represented the mission district own the board of supervisors for all most 7 year jz i have never seen this neighborhood in such a crisis.

middle and working class people, the very people who have made the mission what it is today are having a hard time staying in this community. they can no longer afford to live here. the average rent of a 2 bedroom apartment in the mission is 94500 dollars mptd an average price of a home is more than a million in the naird. housing is no long urfordable to the people who made the community the unique and wonderful place it is. people are terrifyed of the culture and diversity of the neighborhood will be lost forever. what is incredible to me is that the response from this community in response to the housing crisis isn't to give up, it actually has been to stand up to organize and mobilize. the people of the mission have organized arounds

how to save the neighborhood and have come to me andic me to advocate on their behalf by developing bold legislative proposals that are aimed for the purpsh of saving this community. the number one ask is prooratize affordable housing and pause luxiary housing in this community. this is what i present to you today. an interim urgencyords nns that puts a pause on luxury development so we can develop a plan to preserve the remaining land for affordable housing. colleagues, since the mission was rezoned under the eastern neighborhoods plan, not one new affordable housing development is approved and built in the

mission neighborhoods. in the current pipeline, only 7 percent of new units in the mission are below market rate. that means 93 percent of the units in the pipeline are luxury. relying on luxury housing in order to build affordable housing in the knhunty has simply not worked and will not work going forward. and, we are running out of time. >> supervisor campos. we can't have signs displayed in the chambers so if you can keep your signs down and also if you hold your applause out of respect for what supervisor campos is trying to do and communicate so key with move the process along, i would appreciate members of the public to respect our rules so we can move there process along. there will be a opportunity for all of you to

be heard from, but i ask you to refrain from hissing and clapping and booing and signage so we can move the process along. thank you. the other option is resess the meeting and not have a meeting at all. i want to hear from the public, so we can make things harder or allow supervisor campos the opportunity to fix husband speak so each and every un with of you who wants to speak has a opportunity to speak jnchshz the bottom line is we need to build at least 2400 units of affordable housing in this neighborhood in the mission by 2020 if we want to stem the tide of displacement and maintain economic diversity of the mission. i want to thank harvey rose and staff, budget and legislative analyst indicated in the mission there

are 18 sites where foret or more units can be built. to be able to leverage federal funding for affordable housing you need sites where you can build 40 sites or more. of the 18 sites 5 have been taken up to builds affordable housing which means we have 13 partials of land where we can build affordable housing in the entire neighborhood. this is ultimately above preserving this land. in california we have a drought and in response to that drought we are rightly trying to preserve water. we have limited land in this neighborhood, we need an effort to actually preserve that land. that is what this measure is about. i want to ask my chief of staff, hillerary roanen to help where a couple of slides. the first is a map that shows

you this first map, the market rate development in the mission from the year 2003 to the present. the pink dots represent the developments that have #5ur8d been built in the neighborhood. the red dots rement the market rate developments in the pipeline. combine pink and red totals 90 projects of luxury housing that has been developed or about to be developed in the mission. the second map if i may ask my chief of staff to put that up-the second map represents the number of affordable housing developments in the mission from 2003 to the present and i believe by the way that all the colleagues have copies of the slides. only one 100 percent affordable

housing. the mosaying ucproject was biment in the mission back in 2009. there are 4 projects in the pipeline that provide affordable housing but those projects have yet to be built. now if we can go to the third map. this third map shows the 13 sites i was talking about. the 13 sites that are left in the mission to build affordable housing. again, these are sites where woo can build 40 units of housing or more so we can leverage federal funds that are needed to build affordable housing. these maps take entotality show the imbalance we have seen in the neighborhood. the imbalance in housing production in the mission. we have focused on building luxury housing with the hope sth benefit to building luxury housing for the

rich will somehow trickle down and help the middle class and working class. that trickle down approach has not worked in this neighborhood. so, let me also be very clear today and respond to a couple pieces that i believe is misinformation. i would like to address allegations by putting a pause on development that isn't affordable that i'm stopping development in this area where perhaps there are projects that propose 40 or 50 percent affordable housing. i understand that is a valid point that has been made and i have 2 responses. first, there are no such developments in the pipeline in the mission. there are simply no developments that even proport to provide 40 percent, 50 percent affordable

housing in the mission. if those projects were in the pipeline we would have a different proposal. second, a deficit of affordable housing in this community requires that we address the imbalance by actually building more and focusing on affordable housing. that is why the focus is wn00 percent affordable projects. some of my colleagues alleged that my measure will stop group housing, microunits, sro and student housing. these approaches to housing are supposed to be affordable by design, but we are not seeing that play out. not only are many projects not affordable, but they are [inaudible] if any housing types actually 100 percent affordable housing the pause on lexry development

would not apply. now, let me say something about my my colleague sproovisor wiener and he and i have been friends for a long time, we went to law school and respect his perspective. he indicated if we pass this measure it means a automatic 2 year moratorium that will likely become a permanent foratorium. that is not what my proposal is about and not how the law works. we are following state laws which makes it leer that at the maximum we can have a 2 year pause on lexerary development is & the first part of the process is request the 45 days. a number of people have rightly asked what happens during that period of time if that 45 day period or any

additional period is provided. this isn't about sitting on our loreal squz saying we need to wait, this is focusing on work. one, we will insure the new sites are available flaaffordable housing. 3 sitess that are designated for affordable housing they get moved into construction as quickly as possible and made a priority. 3, we create a now enforcement strategy to safe gaerd against [inaudible] 4, that we devise a plan for bringing pdr use into the mission. 5, we create a plan for retaining arts and cultural and non profit and small business in this neighborhoods. 6, that we devise a plan for generating new revenue for subsidized affordable housing.

7, we update the mission area development impact fees. i talked about protecting pdr. production distribution and repair. this legislation is not just about land preserveivation and not just about protecting land for affordable housing, it is also about protecting land if industrial jobs in this community. the eastern neighborhood rezoning the board passed that end och 2008 was designed to increase the amont of affordable housing, something that clearly hasn't happened, and 2, preserve pdr space to scrur the diversification of san franciscos economy. the bottom line is retaining pdr jobicize critical because it is the biggest sector for employment in the mission and represents the only job opportunity for so many in the community. the pdr spaceerize critical to the

vibrancy of the community. mini ortest work in pdr spaces and have for decades and being displaced as a very alarming rate because of the conversion of pdr space to other uses, specifically office space. planning tells while permitted conversion of pdr are 2.2 percent city wide, the rate of loss in the mission is actually 12.3 percent. all most 6 times more. this is taking into account the permitted conversion and doesn't take into account illegal conversion we know are happening. now let's talk about the voters. the voters of the city and coupty of san francisco presented their own vision for housing in san francisco. they passed proposition k last year and my proposal is very much in line with what the voters of san francisco asked this past november. proposition can ask

established at least 50 percent of all new housing should be afford nl for low, moderate and middle income people. my legislation is part of a plan to actually try and reach that goal in the mission and it is actually a community saying we have a strategy for how to meet the objectives set out by the voters of san francisco. again, this is like a drought. the drought that is happening in cl is a perfect analogy. we vadrut in california and in response to the drought we are trying to conserve and preserve water. in the mission we have limited amount of land to build afort bld housing and in response we are trying to preserve that land. let me say that i appreciate we have been tibel work with the mayor on 24th street, but i was a little disheartened to see the budget

proposal. it is a 8.9 billion dollar budget and i know they are allotted things in the budget that are things that need to be funded and i'm appreciative of that. thrfs no discussion of the housing crisis happening in the mission. i want to say something about that. thereive a general discussion for the need of affordable housing in the city in very broad terms and that is important and need to work, but we need it a proseal that speskly addresses the concerns raised by this community. this community that has come to city hall in a way i have never seen since elected to the board of supervisors. we saw more than a thousand people come to this building to say we vacrisis and a crisis

requires full action. we need to make sure that we take steps to deal with the problem as it is a crisis. with that in mind colleagues today i urge you to join me in supporting what this community has asked for. a shortage of affordable housing and a shortage of land on which to build that affordable housing requires we take mairjs steps. i want to thank you supervisor kim, yee, avlos and mar for the cosponsorship of the measure. let me say i have also been heartened to see the level of involvement and i want to address the folks that have come out against this proposal. let me say that i respect your position and respect for you

are coming from. i appreciate the passion but i would hope as you look at this matter that even if you don't agree with the specific request that this neighborhood has present that you acknowledge this neighborhood is in crisis and that phased with this crisis this neighborhood has done something that doesn't usually happen in the city. the community organized kw actually worked to put together a plan of action and what i have seen in response to that plan of action from the opposition is a lot of criticism but no alternative plan for how tewchieve the affordable housing nat is needed. i will end with this, we have district election frz a reason because there is a recognition that the way the system is supposed to work is that as a district supervisor you are goic to know

your district better than anyone else. since i have been on the board of supervisor when something dieer or something critical is happening in a neighborhood we have provided deference. more recently supervisor wiener came to had body and responded to a request from corona heights to address the issue of inbuilding of monster homes in that neighborhood and in response to that request supervisor wiener rightly ked this board to provide interim controls to address the concerns that have been raised by nat community. this specific of what he requested may be different from what i'm requesting, but it is the same spirit that drives the request. just like cor ona rights wants control of the

future the mission wants control of its future. colleagues i respectfully request for your support today. let's send a message that working people, middle income people have a place in this neighborhood. please help us save the mission because in saving the mission we are saving san francisco. thank you. >> thank you supervisor campos. supervisor wiener >> thank you very much madam president. >> can you please refeign from the hissing? >> i want to welcome my fan 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 create 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--