>>it doesn't 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 don't want this to be in any way use for binding what the city's 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 we've been very careful to make sure that

we can discuss this that we don't 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 feelretty 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,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

one-third of the block bounded by howard, spear, folsom, and main streets, assessor's 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 for-sale 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 department's 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 california grantmakers association have determined that four out of five nonprofits are concerned with the real estate cost of their long-term 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 minimum-wage 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 i'm 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 case-by-case 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 middle-class 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 don't 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 isn't 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 this--when 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 kim's 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 resolve 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 don't 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 mean-spirited. 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 don't 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 mayor's 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 kim-excuse me mdm. pres. can i ask supervisor kim a question? >>all you have to say is through the pres. >>okay i'm 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 i'm 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 usesand it seems strange coming from someone from district 4 but i worked on this at the time for citywide production and i think that really for me, the concern still lingers for this particular ballot measure because i believe there hasn't been that complete analysis done whether it's regarding why we shove replacement at 14% or 15%all those that are in the

pdr committee that should be reached out to but today, i believe that i still cannot support this measure because i think that are only saving grace at this moment is that there is a provision that allows us to have an ordinance at a later time. so, with that said, none of this takes away from us with the desire to preserve the community on arts in san francisco. >>thank you supervisor tang.

supervisor kim it is my understanding as well as the city attorney that this is something that could go through the ballot so i am trying to understand why you're choosing to go this route at the board level? >>i did actually respond to that in my opening comments. because of the alarming displacement of pdr in our city our stakeholders felt that they needed the strongest protection in the zoning and arts commission and because of the feedback we will allow the board of supervisors to amend this measure after the ballot passes we will just allow a threshold to make changes to make sure there is broad support as soon as it is passed by voters but, i just have to

say this is not the only ballot measure moving forward that can be done with the ballot measure moving forward. so, if you are going to criticize this measure- i was just going to say if you're going to say this about this measure there's a number of measures that are not going to be done that way and to go back to your question pres. breed, due to the alarming displacement of pdr we just want to see the strongest protections for these uses in our city particularly in these two vulnerable cities. and we need to be careful that with this measure that we want to respect our fellow supervisors

many of whom like supervisor cohen and supervisor tang a really expanding pdr in their districts to allow them to continue with those processes and these have been amended with the stakeholders that i represent and that supervisor david campos represents and that's why we are narrowing this legislation to those two neighborhoods only. >>thank you supervisor kim. supervisor campos. >>thank you mme. pres. i would like to be added as a cosponsor of this measure i think that what she said really goes to the heart of it and i think that for my constituents it is the need to provide the highest level of protection especially making sure that once the protections are in place that these are easily amended and i think that happens when the supervisory can deal with them and i know the hours getting late so i'm happy to support this and supervisor kim and her office and all of the work that has gone into thi and thank you

. >>supervisor peskin. >>i make a motion to approve supervisor kim's amendments. >>supervisor kim has made many amendments and supervisor peskin has made a motion to approve these amendments. >>it is unclear to me why this has to go this way but this is the board's prerogative absolutely i am concerned that

the organization that represents manufacturers in san francisco has asked us not to put this in their it is extremely detailed and today there are exceptions on the merits two portions of this legislation and also the process for this and apparently the eastern neighborhood cac was not consulted. so supervisor kim may have a different perception from her outreachesfrom where she is been informed today it just seems to me that we should not be sending this to the ballot.

this should be handled by the board. i just want to express appreciation for supervisor kim for her accountability i do appreciate that that is good practice and i do offer a proposal to remove the limitation for these amendments and i would be willing to support the amend ability and i would support these that [inaudible] but i would not support this. >>thank you for that feedback. i am not going to say this is a measure that has unanimous support. we are going about protecting pdr and arts. by the way, let me take full exception of these criticisms

that are been made the genesis of this legislation is actually came from the artist organizations in the beginning of 2015. we work directly from the arts commission staff we work directly at the same time that we started putting this together that we started to duck tail exactly when the organization started to be concerned about the low income and middle income housing and low and middle income jobs. so we put this together to protect the distribution of repair and

community arts. we worked very closely with the south market and the mission and we work very closely with supervisor campos bringing this legislation forward and this is one way of us moving forward for us to protect these uses. we think this is the strongest way to protect these uses. not everyone agrees with this but i have to say that not everyone thinks that we need to protect pdr and arts. people want to protect more housing or more uses as well in this case we want to specifically protect pdr and arts and this is why we are putting a replacement on that is different and we are also asking projects in the pipeline to do a little bit

more as well not as much as we expect from future projects but a little bit more than we were expecting today and we have that through proposition c. >>thank you supervisor kim. and, i are we going to divide the amendments? supervisor wiener. >> that would be my suggestion that wevote on these separately. >>versus the lengthy list of amendments? >>yes. >>we will divide those amendments there was a motion to approve the more recent amendment page 9 line 8 through 10 and it was seconded by supervisor peskin. colleagues

can we take that without objection? without objection that passes unanimously. >>[gavel] >>and up on the alternative list of amendment that were detailed by supervisor kim mme. clerk can you please call the roll? >>[roll call vote] >>mme. pres., just a quick question to you supervisor farrell has left the table do you want to excuse himfrom vote? >>yes can we make a motion to excuse supervisor farrell? >>that is econded by supervisor avalos with that supervisor farrell is excused. with that mme. sec. can you please call the roll? >>[roll call vote] >> there are 5 ayes and 7 no's.

with supervisors kang weiner breed and calvin in the dissent. >>mme. clerk, can you please explain the rule? >> when the number of members is reduced, it is no longer required to be six votes in this case it is now 25.

>>a parliamentarian vote? >>that is correct. >>supervisor kim did you want to make a motion? >>i make a motion to continue this item a motion to continue this item to august 2, 2016. >>colleagues, supervisor kim has made a motion to continue this item on august 2, 2016 that is seconded by supervisor campos supervisors can we take this without objections same house same house same house same house samecall?colleagues can we take this as amended without objection?

and without objection this is amended till august 2, 2016 as a courtesy of the hole. >> mme. city clerk can you please call the next item. >>new business? supervisor peskin. >>i would like to adjourn today's meeting with memory of pat--and she was [inaudible]

and i will truncate this a bit and i will truncate this a bit because i know that it is late everyone would like to go home but her daughter is here and she bears a resemblance to her mother and i just would like to honors her in the late 70s she hosted a show in the 70s on politics she was a journalist for a local newspaper for five years and she traveled the world they do on in her years her final unfinished project was on aging pat worked in the san francisco chamber of commerce and she ran her own

public relations firm and worked tirelessly and professionally to protect small businesses and neighborhoods in san francisco. throughout her career she received many awards and accolades from state senators, governors, the business community and city civic leaders including mayor leo around and the pat christiansen achievement award in san francisco and i would also like to give supervisor yee an opportunity. like to speak about her life and work very closely with pat and the undertaking she took in the small business network. i know that pat would have loved this

board meeting and i'm sorry that you had to sit here since 3 o'clock but i will like to adjourn today's meeting in the memory of saul bloom who many of you know from arc ecology as well as the late great and nate thurmond as well as the warriors and as well as a request on the arts museum and a resolution on the screen actors guild employees and the rest i will submit. >>thank you supervisor peskin. supervisory yee. >> thank you i will submit one item and i will all try to shorten what i say as much as possible since i probably speak the least year. i am going to

introduce a resolution that has the intent to allocate funds to support communities including the maintenance of street trees and supporting families with infants and toddlers.i know that you must be wondering why i am doing street trees again we just had a whole lengthy discussion on ballot measures and i started this process before there was any conclusion as to what we wanted to do and i wanted to make sure that we had this legislation for the city to take over our trees and one of the things that i was waiting for was a source of funding and i would say that at

this point, one might think that is not necessary but at the same time, we have a ballot measure that has to pass in order to actually say that is going to be funded. if that doesn't pass then the protection is that this resolution will basically get to the same thing as the ballot measure in terms of funding and the takeover of trees in san francisco and this all started with this wanting to tie some of this into supervisor kim's resolution and that was introduced a few weeks ago on city college and i held off until this time tab that piece in here i will be talking about this a little bit more so that people understand what this is.

one of the things that has been in debate for the last 10 years is why hasn't anyone thought of the younger ones from 0 to 3.so, this will be an attempt to actually get a program going in san francisco and try to duplicate some of the efforts that we have in the preschool for all in this is what i will be calling the preschool for infants and this is the early education for infants program. so, i won't get into it too much but i would love to have an opportunity in the future to articulate when i am trying to

do with this asking to have some funding and in this case, i am asking for funding that is about 10 or $11 million that would help pay for the trees and about 10 million for infant programs. so this i submit. >>thank you supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. supervisor campos. >>thank you mme. pres. today i am asking that a resolution be adopted for sprinklers in the halls and we will ask that we

potentially pilot a sprinkler law in san francisco we also asked that we incentivize property owners to comply with this law and to that end, to make this a reality i'm asking that the fire department and department of building inspection form a working group to examine sprinklers in combination with the workforce group and the puc and others.. along the lines of what we have tried to do we would like to make sure that all options are explored in terms of fire prevention in san francisco the rest i submit. >>thank you supervisor campos. supervisor cohen. >>thank you. today i would like to close this in the memorandum of capt. williams.

capt. williams was an army veteran who received a korean service medal with a bronze a star. he began working as a longshoreman on the san francisco waterfront in 19 was an army veteran who received a korean service medal with a bronze a star. he began working as a longshoreman on the san francisco waterfront in 1959 and in 1966 he developed the drill team josh spread pride all over the united states and marching with these are chavez in 1966 and marching with martin luther king in 1968. he also became a master barbecue pit maker and chef and known for his fried turkey's that are known all over san francisco he is survived by his wife and family and friends.

>>mme. pres. that concludes new business. >>thank you. can you please add my name to the end memorandum as well. >>mme. clerk can you please read public comment. >>at this time, the public has ordering 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 department's determination under the california environmental quality act, at an election to be held november 8, 2016. >>thank you. first speaker

please. >>tom gilbert y one minute,a new record that cuts everything down i should've left long ago it seems like the corporate rate should have the republican party just like we have here in san francisco and these trickle-down the candidates we fear and then we can vote not part of the trickle down. i was going to mention our insurance are $5 million insurance policy. it turns out to be $3 million after a lawyer and any hospital takes any- claims and with five seconds

left= that is terrible bye-bye. >> [timer dings] >>thank you, next speaker please. >>thank you for your time. i just want as a city that we all come with caveats and qualifications and that we all come with standard clauses that should protect the donor from incurring civil or criminal liability so we have been funding these things and accepting this money while still allowing google to evade state law you been enabling this [timer dings] >>i will just repeat it next week thank you.

>>selackley chandler, i am here to acknowledge that with the newspaper i am creating the memoirs of a mother and the mother's child it will be an outlet to the mothers that have lost their children from homicide and to express themselves and their feelings. i have learned along the way in my journeythat many of the mothers [timer dings] especially the african mothers have been abandoned and forgotten i am looking forward to everyone looking forward to the new edition coming out and the memoirs of a mother and her murdered children and this is the foundation lonnie jim line number on day is foundation that i have started.

>>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>good evening mme. pres. and board members my name is adam thompson today practitioners are delivering over 50,000 public petition signatures to the mayor and the board of supervisors have been collecting over the past 60 days sending a clear message that san francisco residents do not support the san francisco chinese consulate interfering with our communities and extending the persecution of the following.for in san francisco we feel this is meaningful because it shows that san franciscan's kr and we care about the values of our great nation and we care about the minority of our group and that

this is being discriminate against in china. >>[timer dings] >>thank you speaker please >>thank you for the supervisors we present an opportunity to share the details of this event and the assault on the street as well as the[inaudible] and number two that are officials we request that you acknowledge

the seriousness of this event and number three we request that you offer your moral support of our community members andthese organization and number four and the last is that we request the board of supervisors to conduct the necessary investigation to find out how chinese counsel it is in association with all of these incidents that are happening in san francisco. >>[timer dings] >>thank you certain speaker please. >>mme. pres. and supervisors even with one minute i just want to say this that we have a few hundred people taking time

off of work and coming to the san francisco supervisor meeting it was two minutes now it is a minute that they get to talk to you and a lot of them have not even had lunch yet but the reason we been staying here so long for this moment is we want to say that this is not an isolated issue. we have experienced this in the past 19 years. we are verbally abuse physically insulted our windows or broken storehouses are broken and this is not a pr issue this is an american issue as well. they have been able to infiltrate and influence division in our community and we want to show moral support-- >>thank you sir. next speaker

please. >>good eveningsupervisors i'm a san francisco resident my name is jenny i am a member of the-- marching band. san franciscans show their overwhelming support and in a matter of six or seven weeks we [inaudible] and parents bring their adult children to sign for generations to generations so san franciscans are knowledge being the impact that the--is bringing to the community for diversity and a risk factor for human rights. we urge the supervisors to take action as well. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>good evening my name is cecilia leo and i am a member

of the marking band as well i would just like to play two recordings a san franciscans who supported us. the first recording is from mr. lee donelson and the second is for mr. josh rock. >> [playing recording] >>[timer dings] >>[playing recording] >> [timer dings] >>thank you.

>>thank you. next speaker please. >>good evening everyone my name is michelle please allow me to play the voice recording of mr. william michael bien a san franciscan. this is quite reflective of the people we've been talking to. >>[playing recording] >> [timer dings] >>[playing recording]

>>[timer dings] >>thank you. next speaker please. >>mme. pres. and board of supervisors my name is peter lou. today i'm going to focus on san francisco-- petitioners to read the letter to you this should go out to the immediate public and copies to the board of supervisors as well and were going to talk about talking stopping the persecution with the chinese consulate in san francisco >>[timer dings] >>on april 17, 2017, -- marching band members were

excluded from- the festival in [inaudible] the application was approved and they appeared in the proper place in uniforms with instruments ray to join the parade-- >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>thank you. >> [indecipherable] >>[timer dings] >>for the past 70 years the chinese council it has pressure with the elective officials to

fight against our been thank you. >>thank you very much. next speaker please. >>to continue the letter, council and officials have put direct pressure on the organization to exclude [inaudible] from events. the marginalization, exclusion against a minority community heavily persecuted is in china oes against everything that san francisco stands for which is

tolerance and inclusivity. this is an example of the persecution that is taking place in china since 1999 and this is an example of the exact behavior still taking place in china. thank you. >>timer dings] >> thank you next speaker please. >>good evening, my name is-- >>sir, i am pausing your time because this order was heard earlier by the board of supervisors. >>at 3 o'clock i was in the hall with the crowd. >>sir, continue your remarks. >>so, i am asking for a reprieve. the property is my

residence it is my sole source of revenue.. it is a rental property and i haven't been paying for the mortgage [timer dings]sfdb did grant me a reprieve, the tenants has since been evicted they did contribute to mydefault on paying my mortgage they have yet to renowned on applying a lean-- >>timer dings] >>sir, can you please wait to the side. i'm sorry that you wait so long but we did hear this item earlier and we will

see what we can do. next item please. >> the reason i am coming here as i'm concerned with the assessment of a lean that's been placed on my property.i believe that that we got a minor building violation in april, [timer dings] we filed a building permit in may and we complied with the requirement and the case was abated on 1 august and we still keep getting the bill from the building department for the monitoring the a total of $720 and so, i think that is not

reasonable-- >>[timer dings] >> sir can you please step to the side and give us a moment to address thisplease.next speaker please. >> on april 19, 2016 i was standing in formation getting ready to participate in the chinese festival parade. suddenly a man shows up at the microphone and says that we are not allowed to participate in the parade because we are part

of the [inaudible] >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>we have been getting a lot of sympathy and support which shows the outrageousness of the situation we have more people support the cause. >>[timer dings] >thank you. next speaker

please. >>my name is- today i would like to talk about the discrimination that we experience at the parade. 30 minutes before the parade we were told we could not participate because we were registered as a marching band and not one of our strong majors attempt to communicate with them we were oppressed in china because of our religion and if we held up that banner in china we would be oppressed because of our religion. i never thought this would happen in america. secondly, in the petition it never stated that you had to

list whether or not you were % >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>hello my name is jack shawn, i want to read where my brother left off. are marching b and is one of the best community marching bands in our area. we just came back from the international festivals in 2007 and 2011 on like other marching bands of must rate five years to return to the parade we had profession and diversity. this is injustice and a clear act of discrimination. you also know that there is the chinese consulates response to this and we hope that you will ear

our cause and help us to fight for our cause. >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>this is not just about a chinese festival parade this is about government interference. [indecipherable] chinese community influence over here and that is one reason they persecute us. government interference is a very big thing this is america. we don't want to fear of

controlling people. >>[timer dings] >>thank you are there any other members of the public that would like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> >>[gavel] >>okay, welcome back colleagues. i would like to make a motion to resend the vote for item number 53 and 54. we had some confusion with some folks from the public who came here to speak on those items

andwere prevented from entering into the chambers, and i think it is important not only to rescind this vote but toextend this item for next week so colleagues can i please have this motion to rescind this item to next week so, without that vote is taken without objection and also without objection can we continue this item at 3 pm is a special item, and without objection that is

adopted unanimously. mme. city clerk can you please read items 77 please. >>item 77 is aresolution urging

ordering 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 department's determination under the california environmental quality act, at an election to be held november 8, 2016. >>supervisor peskin. >>my urge is that the board

will work with the cpuc and adopt a resolution to adopt conviction history regulations in furtherance of a level regulatory playing field and in compliance with san francisco's 2014 fair chance ordinance. >>thank you supervisor peskin has this been approved by their legislature. >>it is my understanding that they have no objections. >>so, i just need some clarity

>>this would be consistent with the ordinance in 2015 for prior conviction histories to those directly relating to the job in question of those having specificregulatory bearing on the job in question and further, it must be a conviction that is less than seven years old. >>okay, i know everybody is tired and i will just make a few comments. i do appreciate supervisor peskin's role in this to work with a number of organizations to try and come up with the right balance in order to address this issue unfortunately, i don't think that i'm going to be supporting this resolution today. we have worked really long and really hard to fight policies that

disproportionately impact people of color, people of low income communities i'm actually really excited about supervisor kim and cohen leadership of this in san francisco and i know that you are making the recommendation we follow that policy but in this particular case, i don't understand why the policy needs to be done in the first place when in fact, there is a policy that exists with the city that supports not going- what is perceived as going backwards. let me try to articulate this when i haven't had food i think since 11:30 am. don't look at me like that supervisor cohen.i have

ran in to people who done time they grew up in san francisco and they've done time and they have a past but because they have banned the box in the city some of those folks are working jobs they never thought they'd have access to so my biggest concern about passing legislation like this after everything we've worked for to move these kind of things forward i'm just not comfortable necessarily with it and i don't see any reason to do it in the first place. so, with that colleagues i am just not comfortable i haven't had a chance toconnect with some of the organizations that i know agree with me on this and in time for this particular meeting and i appreciate your feedback and what it is to make adjustments and supervisor peskin, if you have any other remarks based on my comments i would appreciate hearing them.

>>so if i may through the chair to pres. breed. i think the fundamental opinion of this resolution is really about giving input of this legislation body to the state utilities community which is soliciting comments for people and governments throughout the state of california is about leveling the playing field for the taxicab industry which is actually regulated here through the city and county of san francisco now through the mta and trying to create a fair playing field. i think our taxicab industry has been greatly disadvantaged by a that playing field and i think our intent is to level the playing field. i think that we as lawmakers, have an obligation to society to be aware of things that happen inthe paper as well as the situation with

the uber pool situation where someone tried to sexually assault their client the other day. and we need to make sure that the same written standards that our own taxicab members are held to as our own tmc drivers are held to and i think this ordinance reflects that. >>and, through the chair supervisor peskin. that is exactly i think my point. why are we focusing on trying to change us for taxicab drivers rather than-- and the other point that i forgot to let point out is just having people that i know and personal friends,again, who just got out of jail making a living and

their driving uber as opposed to committing crimes and getting caught up in that again. too often in the city i feel like every time there is a potential opportunity to help support people who need it, then, here comes a city with their new regulations and their new codes and instead of trying to make it better for the taxi industry, so that is not as problematic so that folks that i know can actually have a four-day medallion or drive taxicabs, we are basically saying that we are going to make these particular folks held to the same standards and i support those folks because i am concerned with the unintended consequences of those folks. that is just where i am mad at this point but i do appreciatethe point

but i just don't want to unfairly approve a policy that will put people that i know in a situation where it could eliminate an opportunity for them to make money in this industry. >>there are many inequalities in the tmc industry and thetaxicab industry and i would be happy to work with you to help level the playing field in this industry. i look forward

to working with you on that. i totally respect your opinion with this matter and i would also say, this is not related to pres. breed's comment but it is interesting to me that opposition from this like spurthat are not really interested in the fair chance ordinance they are interested in protecting the sovereignty and the preemption that the tmc companies have been able to how should i say it, buy, in sacramento. i think this is a way it to stick up for 6000 stakeholders in who have had this opportunity taken from them and level that playing field. >>and, through the chair, i see

it as exactly the opposite because let's say it someone that has to pay child support but this is the only way that they can make a living after being released from jail and wanting to change their life or someone who's paying college for their daughter andable to afford to buy plane tickets for their kids to go back and forth to go to school in new orleans. just the examples of people that i personally know who are using this as a way to take care of their family. i just see it from a different perspective. i mean, i could care less about the fact that when you look at the industry and the people who are making the money that they are making from this, it is- they should be putting more money in the pockets of the people that are out there doing the driving. but just again, i know that some of these organizations are no longer opposed to what you

are putting forth and it is not because of some of the organizations that are involved it's more about being happy for members of my community that have this as the option and i'm not certain that this is going in the right direction and i think that we should just focus on the taxi industry and make the appropriate changes and repairs and that. and with that, thank you supervisor peskin for understanding and thank you colleagues for hearing my arguments this late in the evening. >>supervisor peskin, would you like to respond? >>if i may through the chair to pres. breed i was profoundly hopeful that we could join with

the los angeles city and the city council with the support of my proposal here and given that two-- three of our colleagues have left maybe it even though this has been before us three times that the right thing to do would be to continue it to our last meeting before the summer recess where we have a full count of the board? >>so, we have a motion to continue into the august 2 meeting seconded by supervisor kim.supervisor peskin anything else? >>supervisor wiener.

>>i just want to say that i know how hard you worked on the supervisor peskin i'm open to supporting this i think we need everyone else here. >>i won't kill your resolution tonight supervisor peskin at with that colleagues can we take a motion to continue this item to the meeting of august 2, 2016 without objection? without objection motion to continue passes. >>[gavel] >>mme. clerk, on items 78 and 79 can you please call the roll? >>item 78is a resolution declaring july 2016 as a recreation and parks month in the city and county of san francisco and item 79 is a resolution recognizing july 28 as world hepatitis day in the city and county of city of san

francisco. >>no, we are calling the roll. >> i was confused as well. >>[roll call vote] >> there are 8 ayes. the resolutions are adopted unanimously. >> mme. clerk can you please read the memory m's.