Office to present. Our ballot measure today is intended to provide some guidance around i think what is an issue for San Francisco as a city. There is much concern about the loss of space for jobs, particularly for working class jobs and maker jobs. There is concern about the loss of nonprofit space and there is also a concern about the loss of art spaces and these are the types of uses in San Francisco that makes San Francisco so great and so unique. It really is the character of our various neighborhoods and i think these are the types of uses that we as members of the board have been trying to identify ways to help support and subsidize through the nonprofit displacement program, through arts, Community Arts stablization trusts and some other initiatives that have come out of supervisor cohens office to crosssubsidize pdr space so we can have affordable pdr space. So its not just space for these types of uses, its space that it would be affordable and these are the types of uses that in this current Real Estate Market are finding it very, very difficult to compete with office rents that are 70 a square foot, these are nonprofit organizations and arts organizations and job spaces that cannot compete in that mashet. I think this was an issue that was identified in the eastern neighborhoods planning process 5 years ago. One of the two goals of the eastern neighborhoods planing process was to preserve our space for jobs for blue collar jobs if recognition that this is an area where eastern neighborhoods was an area where there was a lot of industrial space, the economy was changing, and there was a desire to preserve these spaces when there were higher and better uses for the space like housing that was in competition with the land in these eastern neighborhoods areas. The second goal for eastern neighborhoods was to increase Affordable Housing, land for Affordable Housing. And i know that this board has been committed to increasing Affordable Housing and identifying ways to increase Affordable Housing, the board unanimously allowed for prop c to go on the ballot which was passed 68 percent by the voters last year and so i think in keeping with that assessing the eastern neighborhoods plan at this point now and having policies and initiatives to support the increase of Affordable Housing, this ballot measure and this policy is in an effort to continue to try to offer a solution to make sure that the spaces in eastern neighborhoods really are intended to protect these 3 types of uses again that cant compete in the market. And we are just coming upon the 5 year eastern neighborhoods monitoring report for how the city has been doing towards those goals and i know the eastern neighborhoods cac will be reviewing this report on monday formally, but i think this is something that has been on the top of minds of everybody, how do we preserve these spaces in a way thats affordable. So the intent with this legislation is to offer an approach to how to ensure that as the neighborhoods develop that we protect these types of spaces while still allowing flexibility for the Planning Department to consider these new initiatives if it was intended to strengthen the underlying goal to preserve pdr and so i wanted to offer some amendments based on the current draft that is in your packet today based on some feedback supervisor kim has met with various stake holders, both people who are concerned about pdr, stake holders who have projects in the pipeline, the department who is implementing it, the supervisors who have, who are in geographies that our legislation would be impacted and so basically in terms of our amendments we wanted to really focus this in on eastern neighborhoods and make sure that the geography for these replacement requirements, which is what were calling for, is replacement requirements and a process if there is a change of use that is occurring in neighborhoods, to be limited to eastern neighborhoods. Our original version of the legislation had a requirement all across the city and after some conversation with the Planning Department and stake holders we didnt want to unduly burden places where there may be current vacancies and this would possibly make it more difficult to occupy places, especially along neighborhood corridors. So the first change is really to ensure that these controls apply to the eastern neighborhoods plan areas of mission area plan, show place square, eastern neighborhoods, western soma, Central Waterfront and in spaces where there was a prior use of a pdr, which is a place where there is opportunity to do Manufacturing Type jobs, Institutional Community use or an arts activity in a building that is identified to be im sorry but not limited to demolition of a building thats not unsound. So this would be a requirement for any change of use or demolition. And weve put a minimum size threshold for pdr at 5,000 square feet and for Institutional Community use, which is the current planning code for nonprofit activities at 2,000 square feet. And in the sally pdr33g, there would be a requirement for a one for one replacement. The idea is these are places where pdr is a primary use and we would want to do one for one replacement. I think of particular concern for people is umu and the mixed use zonings where pdr was allowed as well as housing and wanting to ensure that there is some balance in those areas, i think the most recent eastern neighborhoods monitoring report has identified of the 3 million square foot loss for pdr space over the course of the eastern neighborhoods plan, about 1 million has already been lost and were, we want to make sure theres balance in the future to preserve these types of spaces. And so there would be a requirement to provide point 75 replacement in those zoning areas. Now, if the property was replaced off site that replacement requirement would be increased to one for one. The idea is we want to incentivize replacement at the current site rather than making it off site. And then finally i think on the top of peoples mind is not just to preserve the current spaces that are pdr, nonprofit or arts use, but to make sure that these spaces are also affordable. We want to create an incentive. So if you are, if a project is willing to rent these spaces at 50 percent below whatever the commercial real estate price is, the requirement, the replacement requirement would be dropped by. 25. So, for example, it would mean in an umu where the requirement is point 75, if you are, if you are proposing to do affordable space that that requirement would be dropped to point 5. One of the issues that was identified, that was of concern, was to make sure that the replacement space didnt, that would be a net new and it wouldnt be in an existing pdu, institutional, community or arts space. And then finally i think there has been some discussion about some exemptions and a desire to see some exemptions for certain types of uses and certain areas in the city. So, for example, any property under the jurisdiction of the court that has been a redevelopment plan and or is contemplated to be part of our citys open space through the recreation and Parks Department would be exempt from these requirements. Also properties that are undeveloped or vacant where theres not a pdr use, those would be exempt from these requirements, like if it was just a patch of dirt. Any project where pdr use, Institutional Community use or arts use subject to conversion after june 14th, we didnt want to create a disincentive for future Property Owners to not rent to these types of spaces, pdr, institutional, Community Use or arts activities. Any Public Transportation project would be exempt as well. I think one of the feedback that we received through this process is that perhaps this might hamstring the department and the board from acting in the future in terms of the nuance that is desired by neighborhood and by various communities. And so the board would be allowed to amend this legislation if there was initiative to promote or better achieve the underlying goals of protecting and enhancing pdr, nonprofit and arts uses, or after 6 months 60 months, sorry after the next eastern neighborhoods monitoring report comes out if this is something that has not been successful there would be an ability to amend this legislation further. I think some of the things that we did not include as amendments after the first round of feedback that weve heard from stake holders is around the grandfathering and the Effective Date. And thats something that bee want to turn to look at. I am thankful to supervisor tang for angendizing this i believe for the monday hearing so there will be an opportunity. I hope that you will accept these amendments and then have another opportunity to have another round of amendments over the next couple of days. Thank you for the presentation. Supervisor cohen. Thank you. Good afternoon, thanks for coming to represent supervisor kim. I just have a couple questions. In your opening remarks you mention that the intent of the legislation is to protect and so i guess my question is really focused, why dont we just go through this through the legislative process . Why do we need to bring this to voters . I think the intent is this is an issue thats been identified as a desire to preserve pdr space. It was a stated goal of the eastern neighborhoods plan. I think there is a fear about the aggressive nature of development thats happening, i think theres been a lot of new office and housing proposed but there isnt anything clear directive as to how to achieve balance. Have you taken this proposal and made a presentation to the eastern neighborhoods cac no, i have not. I know this is something that they have been thinking about in terms of just receiving numbers, even prior to this monitoring report about the loss of pdr i dont necessarily know that i agree this is something theyve been thinking about. Its got a letter that i want to read in the record and this is from chris block, who is the chair of the cac says Dear Committee person, i have been chair of the cac since its inception 5 years ago. I respectfully reiterate comments that my colleague bruce huey, and i will read bruces comments later, has outlined and i want to emphasize his conclusion in asking you to step bk and use all of our hard work over the past 5 years culminating in the soon to be released monitoring report before deciding on where the most effective steps are. I also want to read into the record an email that was sent thursday, july 14th, from bruce huey, who is a member of the eastern neighborhoods c ac he writes i write to ask you your consideration as an enabler in the Community Process on issues around pdr within the eastern neighborhood boundaries. I am the vice chair on a 19member all volunteer citizens advisory xhut at the invitation of those on the board and the mayor. We meet once a month for two hours for up to two to four hours of prep time prior to our monthly meeting. This ballot measure has never been introduced or presented for consideration to the cac the pdr Ballot Initiative comes up at the wrong time. The Eastern Neighborhoods Citizens Advisory Committee is drafting its final report on the impact of pdr from the eastern neighborhood plan. This report is due out this summer. You would be better served to wait until this Community Process is finished before taking steps. This ballot is one size fits all and will most likely have a negative impact on my neighborhood, which is dog patch. Each neighborhood within the each neighborhood is different with unique pdr drivers and factors. Each neighborhood in the eastern neighborhoods cac should weigh in on next steps and be a sounding board on the implications of the Ballot Initiative and this has not been done. The pdr Ballot Initiative disregards the legislative process that has worked to engage the community in conversation around pdr with each neighborhood that is part of the eastern neighborhoods. I ask that you reconsider the next steps with this initiative, step back and await the 5 year report and work with the eastern neighborhoods cac to enable the Community Process to outline the best next steps. So i think its important to really frame this conversation because you are coming to the rules committee with a request for amendments and a request to bring initiatives to the voters. There has been much speculation on the amount of initiatives to the voters and whether that will create voter fatigue. Im not here to offer a judgment on that. But what i am here as an elected member of the board of supervisors that has worked with supervisor kim and weve been successful in passing pdr protection legislation that we take a moment to pause and be thoughtful about our approach. I believe the most effective and efficient way to go about this is through the legislative process as legislators and i worry a little bit about bringing something so technical to voters, not to insult voters that they are incapable of understanding pdr and a different planning and zoning code and all that great stuff that we love to talk about, but its almost like we are shirking our responsibility. If we cant get it done, fine, we will let the voters decide. I have some remarks, supervisor tang, if i can continue. The pdr is something i have been working on during my entire tenure on the board of supervisors, most notably protecting it. Not only just me, but its something that i have inherited. Supervisor sophie maxwell, my predecessor, was a fierce protector of pdr however, i have a number of concerns about this measure were going to be discussing today, particularly the way its currently written. I have expressed it to supervisor kim in her office and also have some critiques to the amendments that have been presented today. I believe that these replacement requirements are really simply just too broad and too blunt of a tool to apply everywhere across the entire city. And not only across the entire city, but everywhere in the eastern neighborhood. What makes the neighborhood so beautiful is that its independent and they are rich and unique and i think that is what we need to begin to focus on, how to preserve that uniqueness. I also have a serious problem with the process that the measure has gone through. Its taken nearly a decade of Community Meetings in order to establish the eastern neighborhood and thats not to say that the eastern neighborhood plan is without flaw. I certainly have some issues with the eastern neighborhood plan itself, but we have created a Citizens Advisory Committee to oversee that plan and the establishment of fees so its incumbent of us to work through that established vehicle. From my perspective, very Little Community outreach has been done in the measure and i think the letter, the emails that were read into the record reflects that sentiment. This item has not been presented to the neighborhood organizations that work on Development Issues in the plan areas, particularly the ones i represent. I dont know what happened in the mission, i have no idea what has happened in soma, but as it relates to show place square, as it relates to dog patch, as it relates to lower potrero hill theres been zero discussion. Theres been very little conversation even with my office as a colleague on the board prior to this being introduced and, quite frankly, im a supervisor that represents a very large significant portion of the eastern neighborhoods and a large portion of the citys pdr space. So from my perspective it just doesnt seem ready. I have a number of concerns that id like to take a moment to begin to outline. Ive also expressed them again to the sponsors office so it shouldnt come as a surprise, more for the edification of those in the audience today as well as those watching at home. First of all i dont think we should include pdr2 and the m category and forgive me for being super technical, but this is what we do. This exists, these two sdig you nations exist in the same bay and really frankly nobody has been able to give me any reason and why they should be included in this proposal. I believe we should exclude the portions of the eastern neighborhoods area plan that i represent, specifically potrero hill, show place square and the Central Waterfront. As i mentioned earlier, no one has taken the time to discuss the proposal with the neighborhood, i know i personally havent and now people are awakening and are expressing some concern, im sure this will be reported in some of our Public Comments. Additionally i think the issue if these areas are fundamentally different from those in the mission and the soma. In the Central Waterfront, for example, we are seeing a significant amount of new pdr development which is a good thing with the development of pier 70 and the rehabilitation of the old bethlehem Steel Buildings which is notably not what is occurring in the mission. The second key point is i dont think the requirement that replacement space be new and either on site or in the same area plan, i dont believe that that really makes sense for the neighborhoods that i represent. So what do i mean . We know that new space will always be more expensive and this mer err only encourages the development of new space. Second point is we can do our best to incentivize affordability but we cannot impose commercial rent control requirements. In additional requirement of replacement in the same plan area is extremely limiting. Its extremely limiting. We have had a few examples of tenants who wanted to real estate locate from an umu area or someplace