before you today -- can i ask, if i was to go over the specific amendments? supervisor chiu: i am going to ask the committee to consider. why don't you go through them? >> art will be provideed up to the first three-quarters of a million dollars. they could choose whether to provide the rest on site or to pan to the fund. these buildings -- the have more midsize ground floor spaces between 1500 and 3000 square feet. they could choose what to do if

their requirement or larger. they could choose in any case between on-site art or payment into the fee or any combination. the requirement has been amended so the department may pursue enforcement which would allow us to apply administrative penalties for those who do not comply. and the requirement i believe is to be expanded so the affected districts would be larger. also, different from what the planning commission heard, it removed mandatory consultation. now with over 25 years since the adoption of a planned issue is ripe for revisiting.

with amendments, this ordinance will provide up getting to ensure the city benefits from public are continuing today and into the future. concludes my presentation. supervisor wiener: can you give us some idea of how large are those projects? >> if you think about the standard san francisco lot is 25 feet by 100 feet. that would be to thousand 500 square feet. and -- supervisor wiener: it would be like filling one building. one block building, that is 10 stories high as about 25,000 square feet? roughly? >> roughly.

supervisor wiener: that is held for for me to know. >> a would-be and if you add another zero. 10 more, 10 of those 2500 square-foot lots or a 10 story lot on a standard lot. >> will have opportunity for folks to explain what their understanding is. nitthat is what we currently state as the size of a project in the area that would be relevant for this. ok? any of the questions? there are a number of folks from the arts commission i would like to recognize. is mr. johnson here? >> he was here earlier. >> we have to other individuals -- two other individuals.

the deputy and directors. would you like to go first? want to thank you and your staff for the work you have been doing for the better part of the year to get this done. >> same back to you. good afternoon. is it -- is a pleasure to be here to speak today about the legislation. it is the culmination of many uighurs work with the office. during the process of developing the amendments, the arts commission consulted with organizations such as san francisco beautiful, board members from the american institute of the aia, the urban land institute, business office and management associates, the mayor's office of workforce development along with numerous individual artists and

organizations. the general consensus was that these organizations and individuals are in support of the legislation. based on the belief that a robust and dynamic art environment can activate and enliven downtown and contribute to the population of the popularity of the area as a destination day and night. it is well-documented that the arts are highly cost-effective of driving economic revitalization in urban areas and we hope to see this complement our efforts to activate the mid-market area. we consulted with land-use attorneys on the effects of this legislation and as it is written, we have their support. this proposed change to section 429 will give developers more options. it will allow for greater flexibility and [unintelligible] enliven downtown. it will not result in any

increase o fthe -- of the 1% fee. this is consistent with the recommendations put forth by the our task force and it achieves many of the objectives of the arts college of the city's general plan which i believe was written over 10 or 15 years ago. the goals and objectives are to reflect the belief that the arts are an essential component of city life and contribute $1.40 billion to the city as reflected in the board supervisorresolution. to enlighten, activate, and animate the downtown with our work and cultural facilities, to celebrate the vibrant diversity of san francisco, to a balance the arts as a hot -- cost

effective way of driving revitalization, to preserve and protect san francisco's cultural heritage, to create new cultural destinations through city planning, to utilize existing funding sources for the arts in a new way and you complement the efforts to develop the market area. there will be an inclusive public process orchestrated by their commission to establish guidelines for the use of the trust. it will identify places where public is involved and in the case of capital improvements to cultural facilities will specify what kind of facilities half are eligible for capital improvement and what the funds may be used for. last thing, concluding, the

proposed trust and its uses are more consistent with the original intent of using the our requirement to establish a downtown art gallery than previous legislative amendments that allowed for the art money to be used for the building of the city hall dome or the architectural design of the men. thank you for your consideration. thank you for your support. supervisor chiu: when they talked about the administrative expenses there was a 20% cap on cost and that was taken out of the draft and is referred to as reasonable expenses. do you expect that will be greater than 20%? >> we would try to keep our costs in line with what the city's 2% mandates.

leelanwe would track our time bn hours and expenses. it would not be our policy to create all level of these structures. >> does it matter if we put that back in? >> i have no objection. i don't think the commission would. it is consistent with the art enrichment ordinance that is over 40 years old. >supervisor chiu: i would add that. >> the art director will say some -- some words. >> thank you. this is my first day as director of cultural affairs so i am catching up to speed with the legislation. i do know we work closely with

the planning department and community partners to vet the amendment so we could keep in the spirit of the legislation by providing additional flexibility but not adding additional burden to developers. i am -- in the spirit of the amendment would increase the flexibility to benefit local artists and enhance expanding the benefit. also by increasing the area of the benefit district. i also wanted to relay on behalf p.j. johnson, he expresses his support to the supervisors for consideration of the proposal. thank you. supervisor chiu: before we go to public comment, what i would like to do is summarize the amendments i would like us to consider, some of which were summarized by ms. rogers.

the first page of the three page document i sent ism -- an amended on page 5 which would address the current requirement that right now, non-residential projects with -- there are required to provide a million dollars in public art. we had a number of meetings with stakeholders and what we decided would be appropriate is if we reduced that number to $750,000 but for slightly smaller open spaces between 1500 and 3000 square feet we would require the spaces to spend at least half a million dollars on public art. the second amendment and that first amendment was non- substantive. the second is as well. building inspection was asked for language to specify that as the arts commission has the right to a charge for a minister of costs. this is the third technical amendment to cap the amount of

administrative expenses, not to exceed 21% of the cost for any one project. the one policy decision we have is in the third page of this discussion, which is the planning commission recommended that this 1% fee began to be implemented citywide. put differently, the requirement is on the c3 and extending that citywide. we got a little bit of concerns for developers outside the area. what i would like to recommend is this 1% fee requirement be applied citywide to all buildings over 75,000 square feet and this requirement has a date for projects whose first to middle dates or after january 1, 2013. giving the community some opportunity to build this into place but for projects are under

way to not enter an additional requirement. the planning department suggested the fee not only be allowed to be spent in any -- in the c3 district. this was raised when it came to the conversation around parkmerced or the hunters point project. it would be nice of these larger projects had an arts requirement. the idea is to capture future projects, not the specific projects but projects might involve the public arts. >> if you could clarify the definition of a c3 district. >> that is the downtown district. this was placed on downtown buildings and projects that were over 25 dozen square feet. the thinking at the time was most of the big buildings in the city would be built in downtown. we found over time is we have

some large developments that are being built outside of the area which was the reason why the planning commission decided unanimously, they want it for this 1% fee to be applied equally to all projects throughout the city. over 25,000 square feet. what my recommendation is is for projects outside the c3, we require the fee but for larger projects we do not keep this into place for year and that would be only for those projects whose dates or after january 1, 2013. not to catch anyone who is under way with their project planning with this new requirement. with that, why do we hear from public comment? -- why don't we hear from public comment?

commissioner miguel, i did not see that you had submitted a car but i wanted to give you an opportunity. >> boey be hearing from the mayor's office on the city wide? >> we have discussed briefly and you have not had a chance to discuss it with the mayor. we have tried to offer something we think is summer in lil but one of her public comments -- >> thank you. i'm here as primarily the president of the san francisco arts and credit club and the past chair of the san francisco arts task force created by the board of supervisors. the report we issued and -- in response to your request to look at our infrastructure included in a strong recommendation that the error be expanded citywide. what we did that is when you look at a map of the arts opportunities in each our districts, they are focused in

district 6 and district 3 in district 9. district 10, district 5, all the west side district have very little arts activity. there isis for after-school programs, no cultural experience within our neighborhoods for our use and for our families to experience in their neighborhood. it is part of our general plan that there is a part in every district in the city. every neighborhood, people need to have access to a cultural experience to enrich their lives and in order to provide opportunities for our use. on the task force recommended this be expanded citywide. i appreciate the work and the efforts of president chiu in putting this forward. i was speaking with someone in the audience and we have built out c3.

we're experiencing large scale projects south of market and on the west side, parkmerced, a treasure island, hunters point. if we do not catch up with this development, wearing to lose out on our community to create these spaces and cultural experiences in our neighborhood. i support community -- the community supports it. i appreciate the compromise that was given to give time in order to work this into their projects. i appreciate your consideration. any questions, i am happy to answer. thank you. supervisor chiu: think you -- thank you. >> thank you for moving this. just as the previous item on the

agenda but scott wiener was talking about, this was the first of its type of legislation, with the inference we would see how it goes and we can work with the -- this. the city changes and what was done in the district, i think everyone and certainly at the planning commission which pushed this agreed should go citywide. this is something less should be citywide. the different districts of san francisco deserve this type of our situation. i was going to come here to argue for the three amendments that were crushed. -- pushed. waiting a year until projects

came on line is logical. it cannot push things too far. things have to go in stages. i appreciate capping of the administrative fee. it gives people more confidence on how things will be handled. this gives the leeway on how things are done. it is my belief this legislation has a great deal of support. it will bother some people as all legislation does. another hurdle. i do not think it is an impediment.

there is the end result, even more benefit. i really appreciate it. anything i can do of assistance, please let me know. >> let me ask if there are other members of the public who can speak. is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this? quex good afternoon. happy new year. thank you for helping me today and i would like to thank supervisor david chiu for working on this legislation. we're in support of this legislation with hopes of the community arts planning will include a community organization

to ensure the funds are distributed to nonprofit groups and artists that reflects the community that is going to serve. i and the south of market there is a huge population of latinos, southeast asians, and filipinos. we want to make sure that the arts reflect the ethnicity and the culture of our community. we hope that the arts commission will incorporate community groups in their decisions. we thank you and hope that you would support this legislation as well. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. >> i am speaking in strong support at of the legislation as amended. a couple of opportunities here

in particular with this legislation are, one is it expands the definition of what the -- the support so it is not specific our work on site. also the public trust fund. in helping communities bases and art spaces. that is great, too. we found there was an eroding level of support for our spaces. the neighborhood arts program which predates all of you was one of the largest recipients of tax funding in the 1980's and it was erased. we have the -- a few cultural centers left and that is the only remnant of the neighborhood arts program. that has been proven to be one of the effective ways of improving the economy. we have not been able to support that as well as we could. the other opportunity is that i

and south of market and district 10, we have a larger building that is coming in the next 10 or 15 years. there will be taller buildings in my part of town. this notion about taking large projects and saying let's try to capture some value there for the arts facilities and activities in those neighborhoods is critical as far as helping to improve the creative economy in this parts of town so expanding this beyond the district is critical. thank you for those amendments. >jintao are there members of the public who wish to speak? thank you for your leadership. >> i would like to thank president tchiu and the mayor.

i have been involved in art since i moved to the goodman building. i am working with -- i am a member of the central market tenderloin area cac looking at how do we revitalize mid market and this is an exciting way to do that. activating market street is one of the things we can do. i brought my 8-year-old son to market street when they opened a sculptures across from each other and he brought his best friend and they were so excited by the people that were out on the streets so brilliant dancing. he walked into the area and thought it was a museum and played with an audio-video synthesizer. i was having dinner six months earlier at the old pashtun cafe and i walked out the door and noticed all these young people in six straight for the first two blocks. when i turned the corner there was the luggage story gallery with 300 people on the street standing around talking.

they had an art opening. the idea that we could use this money for capital improvements and group places like the luggage store and activate public space with these events is one of the things that will make a huge difference in mid market and throughout the downtown and neighborhoods. i would say that the office of economic and workforce development has done a lot of surveys of everyone from low- income to high-income residents and there is a common agreement on the need to create more arts and cultural activities in mid market so people feel more comfortable going down there, shopping at the stores, going to the art galleries, eating in restaurants. this is a win-win. i endorse and support the amendments that are presented today. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i am volunteering for representing the arts and

rezoning in western soma. i wna want to thank you for coming up with modifications that has helped us sponsored our district. maintaining the focus and continuing to expand funding and available options on the mid- market would be fantastic. we have done everything we can to continue to represent for their creative communities in this area. i was encouraged that this could be expanded to a city-wide policy. there are no opportunities for community actions for new developments that could go toward the arts or community centers. we have heard testimonies these are essential resources within san francisco. i am overjoyed to hear there is some consideration and it is still huge. i hope there will be opportunities to reevaluate. it is a compromise of this point. basically within the framework

of this it will help balance essential needs and continue maintaining the san francisco as the city of arts and i am hoping this process is approved. thank you. >> i am here to support the amendment. i was not present at the planning commission but i am told it was represented by large developers. there were no smaller developers. i do appreciate the amendments here today. the difference between a small builder and large builder is not that much. i yard of concrete for a small addition is the same year that goes into a high-rise. the primary difference is access to capital. and construction lending especially below $20 million is difficult to get. our builders have no vehicle or

mechanism to carry such a load. unemployment is over 30%. many smaller projects are approved. they do not cancel out. smaller builders -- we support the legislation, especially with a threshold of 75,000 square feet per building and to respond to your comments earlier about what is -- that is the mistake was made that we were adding up the number of floors. a typical site of 100 by 150 would create 75,000 square feet. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. if you could speak up on the left -- line up on the left-hand side. >> that afternoon. this is almost a kumbaya

moment. it is a hit but it is such a great thing for the city. i appreciate the work that has gone into this. let's move ahead. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. are there any members of the public that wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: i did have a question that needed quantifying. i understand the sales force company is planning a huge building in mission bay. it looks like it is 2 million square feet. i am wondering how much would be contributed to public art or never had a start from a project like that. just some general idea. i am appreciative of the smaller developers