People and then the transaction to rent is done separately and would that be captured under we would have to look at the factual scenario. This i believe they have several sites to provide this service but if the arrangement is not being made under the particular site for collecting or booking a service thenit would not be collecting a fee for booking services that type of transaction. Several companies have different types of Services Provided and when they offer the actual calendar or reservations and accept the fee for those services that Business Activity would be covered. We are regulating not companies but Business Activities and conduct. We are regulating the fee and payment for services. With this have to be specific to that transaction or is there an annual transaction fee thats what i am getting at . It doesnt have to be specific to that payment if it covers booking and services that you provide too. Supervisor campos. Just want to be very careful with this discussion because i dont want this to be in any way use for binding what the citys arguments areand i just want this to be fact specific our intent is to cover not just one platform but several platforms that engage in this Business Activity and the fact that they are not doing that and they are simply publishing that were not doing Something Else outside of the scope we certainly want to hear those specific facts and weve been very careful to make sure that we can discuss this that we dont bind ourselves because we also know that from each one of these companies this is a source of changing and that some of these Companies May be doing things today and maybe doing some things in the near future that may be different. But, that is what the intent is it is that. Thank you supervisor campos. Just a quick question, do you think based on your proposed amendment, that we should have a closed session discussion about this or, are we good to go with things as is . I feel pretty comfortable moving forward pres. Breed. Obviously, it is up to the board. Obviously, if they feel there is a need for a closed session discussion. I think the way that i see these discussions that they are to clarify intent and be precise and concise in light of what the platforms have said so, i do not think that is necessary but i certainly not opposed to it if anyone feels the need to do that. I failed to make a motion so i will make a motion along the lines of what we have amended. Okay, supervisor campos has made a motion colleagues, can we take this motion as amended without objection . Without objection this motion has passed unanimously. Can we please call the roll on these amendments . [roll call vote] there are 9 ayes. This ordinance as amended has passed unanimously on the first reading. [gavel] item 72 item 72 isa resolution authorizing the sublease between the city and county of San Francisco, as tenant and sublandlord, and at the crossroads, as subtenant, of 4,124 rentable square feet in the building located at 167 jessie street, for an initial term of five years at a base rent of 1 per year, to commence upon approval by the board of supervisors and mayor, in their respective sole and absolute discretion. Supervisor kim. Thank you i was very excited to bring this resolution forward. This organization the crossroads would have had there mission severely impacted if they could not have this in place in neighborhoods where they provide this services. I want to thank the Mayors Office of community developmentsi called for the displacement of the nonprofitDisplacement Task force as leases were starting to expire over the next three or four years in the Nonprofit Sector this board created that nonprofit Displacement Task force to come up with a set of recommendations on how we can better support the nonprofit organizations with the rental increases we have seen and also with technical assistance. One recommendation that came forth was to reserve profits for when these leases end. Organization ,at the crossroads is actually doing this and colleagues i ask for your support on this item. Roll call vote mme. Clerk. [roll call vote] there are 10 ayes. The resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel] item 73. Item 73 is a resolution approving the disposition of land located on the southern onethird of the block bounded by howard, spear, folsom, and main streets, assessors parcel block no. 3740, lot no. 027, by the office of Community Investment and infrastructure, as Successor Agency to the San Francisco redevelopment agency, to block one property holder, l. P, a Delaware Limited Partnership and an affiliate of tishman speyer, for the purpose of developing affordable forsale housing for low and moderate income households; and making findings under California Health and safety code, section 33433. Colleagues, can we take this item same house same call . Without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel] item 74. Item 74 is a motionordering submitted to the voters an ordinance amending the planning code to require conditional use authorization for conversion of production, distribution, and repair use, Institutional Community use, and arts activities use and replacement space; and affirming the planning departments determination under the California Environmental quality act, at an election to be held november 8, 2016. Supervisor kim. After all, as you heard earlier today we are losing our auto mechanics, our automobile repairmen and women and bakers and artists. Not only do we want to live in a city where these arts and artists are performing these are well paying jobs where they are paying 20 30 per hour that you do not need a college educationtwo achieve. How much housing, for where, and for who and how much hotel and office and how Much Community facilities and arts. The zoning allows us to map the city that we and we are encouraging a diversity of jobs for our city not everything for example can be office. While these are great jobs, we also need to make sure that we own areas that bakers, artists, and individuals can prepare and distribute they. We land use and zoning expresses what we value and the types of jobs that we can be in and they are at risk and we have heard countless stories and a recent report by the Northern CaliforniaGrantmakers Association have determined that four out of five nonprofits are concerned with the real estate cost of their longterm Financial Sustainability according to a study by the city of San Francisco. This report identifies that using zoning for nonprofit space or turning public property into nonprofit space can help tremendously in making sure we preserve these spaces. Now, the genesis of these legislations actually came about 1 1 2 years ago when we came about the rapid threatening of these artists associations in San Francisco. We had just learned that the south market studios which was home to 40 artists would be evicted in the fall. We also learned that potential loss of [inaudible] and we knew [inaudible] we know it is not just the arts, manufacturing is also at risk. During this time there were parallel conversations and the mission of many of our stakeholders about the loss of the distribution of providing these minimumwage jobs for our residents. What we are seeing in the loss of the city is alarming and it is happening very quickly and our stakeholders want to put forth the strongest protection for pdr and arts. That is the legislation passed by the voters. Now, this is just the baseline we expect to follow with trailing legislation and work on the focusing of many issues brought up in particular by katie 10 and supervisor are cohen along with organizations like sf. I want to thank and recognize supervisor cohen and supervisor and limited it to that area this advocated for and i also want to recognize supervisor campos for his assistance on this legislation and i want to thank them for helping to make this legislation more concise and clear. We also took the request to exempt projects that were in the pipeline and we did agree that these changes that would be put in place would affect their economic viability down the road to incorporate these changes. These are some of the amendments i will be putting forward today. The one amendment that i could not agree to which i stated on the rules committee is the complete grandfathering of all of the projects on the pipeline. There is far too much Square Footage being put forward today. That is why im going to be making an amendment to this that the replacement requirement should actually be 40 on projects in the pipeline for projects of greater than 50,000 ft. 2 the replacement requirement is determined currently on a casebycase basis and has been as high as 50 replacement for example 66 street. Our current legislation would require 15 and we feel that this is in terms of ower income and middleclass housing in the projects. And, if you provide affordable space for 55 years for no less than 50 of commercial we will reduce this requirement by 50 of this affo square feet in a loss of pdr space and that is why we felt it was too valuable to grandfather in. There are a series of these that i have distributed in the record. If you would like a copy i have additional copies. The amendment start on page 6, line 3. Number one, we are deleting c3g from the replacement requirement because there is no cg3 in the existing neighborhoods. And the projects that are zoned by which an application was provided for the proposed conversion. We also put in a would be if you agreed to provide affordable replacement space for not less than 55 years that your obligation be reduced to 15 . The next amendment is replacement requirements for pdr and arts use. While Institutional Community is replacement will only be for Community Use. This is on page 5, line 17 and the amendment is there so that we dont have these uses pitted against one another. The next amendment is a clarification to require legal, pdr, arts or Institutional Community use, and permitted use. And the next amendment is on the sound threshold would comply with the Committee Use or the arts use on page 7, lines 1 through 10 and the next amendments would be that the committee be required to reduce the higher replacement. Requirement we did accept an amendment at the rules committee that 100 Affordable Housing would be exempt from these requirements and while there was protest from the community that did not except amendments from supervisors peskin and tang because these still make their best efforts to replace these arts and community space. This is actually the final amendment, we do an exemption for a project that is in the process of a legal Office Conversion that is under review by the planning department. Colleagues, these are the amendments that i am bringing before you today i actually do have one more on a separate page but after some thought and consideration we had actually taken again, the feedback of the rules committee that we allowed this ballot measureto be amended by the board of supervisors in the future. We recognize that planning and land use by the ballot box can be a dangerous place for that to sit so we do want to allow this board of supervisors to amend this legislation as they see fit. Original language said that a board by the majority could amend this legislation as long as it promoted or better achieve the underlying goals of the arts use and Community Use it but after thinking this through with my lawyer had i believe that this is something that the board would struggle as to whether or not this is or isnt so the amendment that i would offer today is that on page 10, that i the supervisors by ordinance at least two thirds of their members may amend thiswhen there is a broad amendment from this board where we want to exempt these requirements, i think that we can get a broad majority of the board to support these types of amendments. Colleagues, i apologize for the length of the amendments that i propose today but these are the moments i bring before you. Supervisor kim thank you. I have many questions. I will direct this to the deputy City Attorney. Supervisor kim says adoption of the ordinance would require a two thirds vote. Is that correct . The measure requires six votes to be placed on the ballot. Supervisor kims proposed amendment and typically when a voter adopts an amendment, typically only the voters can amend this and the board cannot so supervisor kim is offering up an amendment today that the board would be able to amend this with a two thirds vote to that. I believe we should be addressing this legislatively and not for a ballot measure. All of these issues that we are discussing can be solved legislatively through interim controls and ordinance. We have introduced interim controls that mirrored this ballot measure their only slight changes to this and i introduced this last week. I always had some serious concerns from the beginning that very Little Community consultation or public process has gone into the development of this measure which you are proposing some significant changes. I took nearly a decade of Committee Meetings in order to establish the eastern neighborhoods plan and there was a Citizens Advisory Committee that oversees this particular plan and as you know, as the maker of the legislation the larger committee, he cac asked us to take a step back from this legislation at this time. This is incredibly complicated and it not this and dues that are really left are better left to deal with via legislation and not of the ballot box. I would continue to urge and implore us that we at least try to work through many of the legitimate issues legislatively if we are unsuccessful then i think that we should deftly move forward with a ballot measure. But as of today, no one has even tried to these issues through the legislative process and there are couple things that i want to go through with this process and supervisor kim you are going through this correct . Is use me supervisor cohen and supervisor kim,if you will speak through the president i would appreciate that. I will just continue with my talking measures and she can respond accordingly. Replacement requirements for these projects are a sticky subject in my opinion that this change it would be the same as it was in committee and i think that it would bethe same as it was in the committee and i think that the replacement requirements for project in the pipeline is not supported by any analysis and quite frankly, we dont even know if it is feasible. To apply this requirement that is close to these approval to that would seem arbitrary and i think described to the committee as meanspirited. Mme. Pres. , i wo have a question that i would like to direct through it you just supervisor kim. Are the replacements interchangeable and can Affordable Housing processes replace Community Uses . Supervisor kim. Thank you supervisor breed my apologies for responding to quickly. While pdr and arch you shall be interchangeable we did not allow Institutional Community use and pdr are choose to be interchangeable this is just to ensure that we dont value one or the other and that we would protect them both. Okay, mdm. Chair may i continue . Yes. The reason that asked the question is because you may recall in committee that the Mayors Office of housing stated that they often have uses that are required under state law in place in the ground floor of the projects that qualify as Institutional Community uses and so this would be a conflict. May i respond mme. Pres. . Supervisor kim thank you. We have a complete exception per your request and supervisor tang for 100 affordable projects. I did put in an amendment that encourages these projects to replace as is, but again, we do not intend on conflicting with any project that the mayor has with these projects thank you because we have heard loud and clear from folks. The Historic Preservation exemption i think it makes sense to include it. I think that we want Property Owners of Historic Buildings to maintain them and improve them and in exchange, we allow them to have higher rent paying uses. I think making this change still allows us to put forward a strong pdr policy without compromising Historic Preservation. And, supervisor kimexcuse me mdm. Pres. Can i ask supervisor kim a question . All you have to say is through the pres. Okay im sorry. It is getting late. And through the president supervisor kim did you include the feedback with this legislation . We decided not to include that feedback because this ballot measure does not require a strengthening can be any type of amendment now. The changes are just meant to change the threshold for how we change this legislation. I think we can change the vetting of this land marking through a fully legislative process. Great, mdm. Chair i am going to relinquish the mic at this time. Thank you. Thank you supervisor cohen. Supervisor supervisor supervisortang. Thank you very much im going to start out with some positive comments on this i would like two say that they are are a lot of things that we have suggested in the rules committee which is made this a little bit more digestible for us we care very much about art uses and pdr usesan