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 and thank you for explaining a lot. that is helpful. for big projects, how much would come in for public art? >> the amount of the fee, i cannot quantify that. is 1% of the construction costs for a building of that size. as you know, construction costs fluctuate. i have records, i do not think that have them with me about how much we have gotten from the past 1% approval. >> it sounds like this expansion of a city-wide process to make sure there is are in every neighborhood would make sure that the bayview hunters point and other areas can get the kind of our that the downtown and other spots have received. >> to some degree. we just did an informal and loose cal looking at a pipeline

of the project. there is very few projects that are outside of the area. there is an area, eight or less than 10. >> thank you. supervisor wiener: are there, answer questions? comments or questions? we have a number of amendments. can we take those without objection? there because of the first three amendments are technical amendments. we could vote on those today and move this out of committee. the issue around city-wide, the city-wide arts be is something we would have to sit. we would hold over until the next meeting which is two weeks from today.

supervisor wiener: can we take the amendments without objection? supervisor chiu: you can take the amendments however you wish. the three -- i was explaining the three non-substantive amendments. >> you're asking us to take all of them? since we do not have the language for the city wide, how that works? >> we know -- the president has distributed a proposal for what the amendment would do. this language is going to be incorporated each place in the document where it describes public artwork and it would be expanded to citywide at 75,000 square feet. if the committee wants to move that amendment today, we can true that up within the document and have it available for -- to be noticed for next week over the next meeting.

supervisor wiener: would all the -- [inaudible] deryk rove did the arts commission consider this as well -- did the arts commission consider this a while? >> i am constantly would-be -- it would be contrary not to support the expansion of an arts requirement. supervisor wiener: does the mayor's office as a co-sponsor have a position on it? >> i addressed the committee and said the mayor was supportive of the amendments be made i was referring to the amendments we had of the text of the legislation we have received and that did not include the expansion of city-wide fee even

at the 75,000 sq. ft. lo newble or any level. at this point i am prepared to extend the mayor support on the legislation i was given with the three amendments. the conversation around a city- wide phoebe is a good conversation ran out. we heard in natomas support -- unanimous support. there is some appetite for that among some folks were peña attention to this issue. i just saw the database of projects in the pipeline that qualify. i am not prepared to talk about that yet. i am learning about it. >> it is not that the mayor is opposed. what we could do move this so it

gets incorporated in and we get two weeks to confer on this issue and for the mayor to take a position? >> sure. >> expanding the city wide means there will not need to be an official fee published so you will need to wait three weeks in order to facilitate getting an ad in the newspaper. supervisor wiener: that gives plenty of time for discussion. supervisor chiu: it is my and standing from planning staff -- understanding from planning staff that the language of a proposed for the expansion, there are no projects that you are aware of that would fall into that category, is that right? >> faris eight out of -- >> this is a spread sheet that

has developed some of the projects change as we go through the review process. it is a window, a snapshot into what the possibility could do. at of the 81 projects i have there would be eight projects that would qualify as above 75,000 square feet. supervisor chiu: where are those? >> largely south of market. supervisor chiu: one thing i will mention. this program was structured around the time of the downtown plan was developed in the mid- 1980's. the number of large buildings that we may have an interest in seeing art be associated with has been expanded. the thinking around a city-wide requirement is to get at that. what would make sense is if we could take these amendments knowing that over three weeks we will continue to have conversations with the stakeholders to hammer the specific details. i am considering changes but it

is important to consider the city-wide perspective given how the buildings are run and how our city is growing. supervisor wiener: can we take the amendments without objection? we have a motion to continue this for three weeks. is there any objection? thank you. please call the last item. >> item 3. amending ordinance 1061 to change the official sidewalk width of mason street. >> their afternoon. -- good afternoon. in this case, it is a proposed widening of the sidewalk at the southeast corner of mason street at the intersection of mason street and washington street. this is part of the work that is being done currently at the

chinatown recreational center that is under construction. the design team doing the review process determined it would be appropriate to widen the sidewalk in to the southeast corner to reduce the crossing distance on mason st. to provide better pedestrian safety or the proposed center. the department has reviewed it. it went through the planning department and city agencies have determined it is satisfied. >> looks like it is across the street from the cable car museum. i am looking at the google maps. it looks to be a street on a hilly area but is a narrow street.

is that the major -- >> this is on mason st. on the opposite corner of the rec center. you cannot put anything in front of the rec center because that is where the cable car turns. you could not sure in the sidewalk. supervisor wiener: any questions? is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? public comment is closed. let's move this without objection. thank you. is there any other business? >> there are no further matters. seeing none, meeting is adjourned. thank you.