support from the aia as well as spur. this shows that this is putting politics aside and it is about saving these buildings and making sure that that 58,000 san franciscoans are able to return home. i am happy to address any questions that the commission may have. >> commissioner walker? >> thank you. >> i see a lot of folks here and in the audience who have been working on this very important issue for well over a decade. and i am really excited to see this mandatory program. i think that i have been involved in this process myself, for well over a decade. and as i have said often, the more that you realize and know about the state of some of these buildings, the more

urgency there is, i fully support this program. and this mechanism which we have wrestled with for a long, long period of time. so i wonder if you could talk about any kind of movement that we have in helping the building owners with these up grades in a way that does not negatively effect the affordable and the pass through to tenants. >> absolutely. one of the things that the commissioner requested of me that we do out reach in a few areas. out reach to the tenant community to figure out what their issues are. and the property owner and more importantly to out reach to the finance mechanisms to find out that there is an affordable component to pay for this. >> we are not taking a one size

fits all approach to all sides fit all. it has complications which you know about. the idea is to create a comprehensive menu of financing options. so what we have done is engaged several private lenders and most of them credit unions and banks and they have all come forward with the intent to establish their own programs in their own lending institutions as we know the mandates come from the city like this, it is important to provide a public financing mechanism which i will explain in a minute and it is the tendency of a lot of property owners to work with their lending institutions and now the banks have agreed to come forward to create the mechanism to refinance their property to be able to pull out the additional funds for construction because of the loan to value ratio that is a problem and there is also the availability of doing a secondary loan to access these funds and a gamut of other options some of these buildings are considered historic and so we are working to access the

funds to be able to stream line that process as well as our public financing component which will be a discontinuing (inaudible) district and it is similar to the green financing in the city it allows the loans to not only be associated with the individual but with the property. if the property changes hands, the length of the loan stays with the property. whereas it stays with the individual. the idea is that there are other options the idea being is that we want to give as many option to people as possible and have a year to vet these programs before people need to actually access these things so that when the time comes people have a way to pay for this. >> commissioners? >> thank you. >> i am very supportive of this and i am glad that it is finally getting to this point. i think at one point, we were hoping to get this passed or actually introduced a couple of years earlier so that we could stimulate the economy and some

of this work and those that were involved here. and also, i am glad to see that that was a very cohesive piece of legislation that involved a lot of different communities and stake holders. you may say, so that i am glad that you got the buy-in from them. my question goes to, when or how does this start in i mean, when do we project that the first letters will start going out to the property owners? and how many of those property owners do you foresee will be receiving that letter that they have to do their survey if they are building? >> so based on the cap state we are anticipating that there are 3,000 buildings that will require the retrofit. we realize that it will be larger than that and we make sure that we encompass this and don't miss anybody and give the people an opt out and to scrutinized for a building that does not comply with the ordinance. once the ordinance is signed by the mayor and passed by the

board of supervisor its will go into effect 6 days after the mayor's signature. it will go out to the pool of property owners and they will have one year to complete a screening process and from there that will establish which of the four compliance tiers in and completing the work will be dictated on that table. >> it sounds to me that a lot of buildings on the mailing listed are identified. >> no the most part. you hear about this list that is out there. >> this was based on the caps data, it is not a definitive list and it does not identify the buildings that have a soft story condition. this was done as a public policy. a lot of those will be repeated in the pool and we are creating a separate pool based on several data bases to make sure that we have accurate notice. >> it sounds like it is happening fast. >> yes, this train has left the

station. >> yeah. >> it is happening fast, but a lot of us think, why? why did it take so long? again, a lot of thanks is due to the people in our code advising committee and a lot of people who have worked on this for many, many years and for some of us on the commission as long as we have been on the commission we have been talking about it. it is overdue and i am support of it as well. i am just concerned with a couple of things maybe that some of the legislators have not discussed and if they have, maybe they could let us know about it. one was we know that a lot of the buildings the main part of the construction is going to take place on the ground floor where it is mostly parking garage and things like that. but we also have some small businesses that occupy some of these spaces. and so this located a small business where there is a bar or a restaurant even for six months or a year, that is the depth of their business. they can't just go away and come back. and expect everything to be all right. so i was on wondering if there

was any relocation and funding and something that in a way too, but not have not always been looked at as tenants by the residential tenants upstairs. i am concerned with the businesses and whether there is any thought about what happened and whether we will identify how many of these businesses will be affected. >> i think that is a fantastic point. we have done extensive out reach to the community and have a working group which president mccarthy is working on with me and also engaged in this process. these are about 2,000 businesses that operate in these type of structures, they are often small businesses. so you are right, displacing them will be a huge inconvenience. the advantage that we have in the scope of this retrofit ordinance is that the work is limited to the perimeter of the building. so almost in no cases are these businesses going to be forced to shut down. they may have to deal with

construction but the same thing goes for the residents above. by limiting this to the ground floor, you are able to keep the tenants in their homes and businesses operating and you are able to do it in a minimal way that is protecting their business because if we do leave the businesses due to the collapse of the buildings these are small businesss that will not return, these are small businesses that are vital to the neighborhoods that we have here. and when these businesses go out, it gives larger businesses, more corporate businesses and chain stores the opportunity to come in and swoop up the business that it has lost. so we are doing extensive out reach to that community sxauls it is important to note that we have put those businesses and buildings, in tier four, so we give them the longest amount to comply because we know that there are issues surrounding that so we want to make sure that they have enough time to act accordingly. >> commissioner melgar. >> thanks for being back here. so back to the question about

the financing, so after our last earthquake we put on the ballot a reinforced mansionry buildings and it was too much details, to make it work. so, and i know that there is money in there still, i am wondering what the possibility of accessing those funds for the profit developers and folks who might have a harder time accessing financing. or, if it is like, it has got to go back to the voters, if there is any conversations about making that happen. because i think that the intent, really was to make the city safe. and i'm not sure that people understand, all of the minucha of what we were putting in the strings attached and i wondered if you had talked about that. >> that is an issue that has been discussed for several years under the mayor and the task force. it would require to go to voters to repurpose that money but it is more complicated than that and i am not an expert in the public finance arena but the way that it has been explained with me is that it has to do with the city's bond

capacity and repurposing that money it would not be as effective as establishing a new bond. when it came before the board, as much as i would be able to access that left over $290 million in that bond, i think that it is impossiblebility. >> lesson learned about getting too detailed. >> and any more? if i may there are public members who served on the committee, i don't know if they are going to make comment. but it would be good to introduce them. >> first yourself, president mccarthy, you have been co-chairing it with me for some months and this is the body that is going to carry out implementation of the soeft story and the 30 year work plan and we have established a political group of people who represent various stake holders and different communities and so thats that been a tremendous asset to us. and i would like to recognize

corn field and without his efforts i would not be standing in front of you today and there are several other people that i like to recognize but i believe that they intend to speak in public comment. >> if there is no more, we will open up for public comment. madam secretary. >> thank you very much, commissioners. >> thank you. >> good morning, kelotwitz, i wear two hats, i am the owner of a small company in san francisco and also of the district merchants. we are looking forward to this and the best part of it that going to be the work on the ground floor for the whole building and we are really supportive of it. you know, if it does happen and we don't have this done, a lot of businesses out of business. and plus, it will be much more damage to be severe than the cost to retrofitting and so we are support of this legislation

and looking forward to and and thank you very much. >> public comment? >> next speaker, please? >> good morning, commissioners. my name is john paxton i am a residential tenant and i strongry encourage your support of this initiative. and i am also active with spur and i was honored to be co-chair of the caps public advisory committee. caps as many of you know is over a ten-year project that brought together people with from every aspect of our community, the builders, developers and insurancers, academics and we had ed lee and brown at various points and we were very active in this. our first job was to assess the vunerbility of the buildings in san francisco, what buildings were likely to be most at risk. and as we brought that very

diverse group of people together and everybody realized that we have a big problem before us, where we had a very desperate diverse group of people who were at each other's throats. everybody came together and said that we have a collective problem and collectively that we have to solve. >> and as things moved on, in the end, when the final caps project was done, and the final reports were presented to you, in 2010, the public advisory community there was unanimous support for the program. this program, the south story ordinance actually was brought to you first four years ago today. you wonder why it has taken many of us wonder that as well. it was actually four years ago today that the report hear

today hear tomorrow was brought forth to you. there is caps has evolved into esop the earthquake implementation program which is a 40, excuse me, 30-year program. the soft story ordinance is the first step in that. it is the low hanging fruit. this is where we get the biggest bang for the buck. this is going to be the easyist and cheapest of the problems to solve and we will look forward to your support in the other efforts on the esup program as well. but i strongly encourage your support on this. thank you commissioners >> thank you, thank you for all of your service, so far. >> next speak ner >> good morning, it is char on short with the housing rights

committee. this ordinance, yeah, it needed to happen, yesterday. and that is many yesterdays ago. and so, we as this issue about this issue and this ordinance has gained more attention in the media, we have heard from tenants who have learned, wow, my building is on this list, i really worried. i feel unsafe. and so we have definitely heard that from the tenant community that they want to see this happen and they want to see it happen now. but, i of course, do have to bring to your attention that the other flip side of what we hear from the tenant community individual tenants is but this can't happen, you know, at the expense of especially low income renters in this, i know, housing market where it is so difficult to find affordable rentals even, it sounded like from what i know, that there could be as much as $100 a month in a pass-through,

because this, well it is the responsibility of the landlord to fund the retrofitting. they can pass it through legally 100 percent to the tenants. and so, we are definitely going to be working on helping patrick and the folks involved in this ordinance. and working with the board of supervisors to figure out, you know if there is a way to do this more fairly so that there is not even a possibility that essentially tenants could pay 100 percent of the cost. through the passers that the rent board would allow and so, that is sort of say, we highly support this measure and we don't want to obstruct or even kind of let it go another day. yet, we do have faith and a belief that we can do this in a more fair way and that it is a very important principle and i

think material reality that tenants actually can't afford such high pass throughs, and the last thing that we want to see, i think that any of us want to see is that in an effort to make these buildings safer, people are actually displaced from those homes who are living there. so, we will be chiming in and you know, meeting among ourselves to figure out and propose some good solutions, you know, the last thing that we want to do is simply oppose the measure. we do very much support it and we think that in the spirit of this, you know, bringing all of these voices together to support this, that we can do that. thank you. >> thank you, miss short. >> and we look forward to seeing you at the table. and when we are discussing all of these issues. next speaker, thank you. >> good evening x commissioners, my name is chris poland and i am a structural engineer, and the member of the spur board of drekers and chairman of the spur initiative. i am here to speak on behalf of

spur in support of this mandatory seismic program. spur established and published for what san francisco needs to do to prepare for the next great earthquake, it provides the next activities and retrofitting the buildings and protects the occupants and supports the recovery, we need our neighborhoods to be secure. and able to support the shelter needs of the people who will leave there so they can be fully restored in 30 to 60 days and this is important for the city's recovery. for the people who will go to back to home they need to be in their homes and the kids need to be in their schools and the neighborhoods need to be restored and the local businesses need to be operating. unfortunately as you know, half of our residential units in the cities don't meet this goal. as you know, san francisco has a unique style of multifamily housing and it is vulnerable. the earthquake damage and

collapse. they represent the single units in the city, they are three stories or more in height. they house nearly 60,000 people and 2,000 businesses. those are all small businesses, and these are the ones that are subject to the retrofit program. if they are not fixed this is the important part, the okay you pants will need immediate shelter and temporary housing for two years and the small businesses will fail and we know that from the earthquake, when the neighborhood goes out of business the small businesses fail. san francisco does not have room for construction and the people that are most affected will need to move to other cities and never return to san francisco. we have the opportunity to dramatically change that out come. this mandatory retrofit program is well conceived and has a broad community and technical support for the engineers and provides the soft story buildings to make them safe and able to support shelter in place. the cost is very affordable from the structural engineer standpoint this is really a

good deal for fixing buildings and does not require a relocation of the tenants or the businesses. while this provides obvious benefits to the buildings and owners and occupants the biggest gain is to the city. and i urge you personally and on behalf of the spur to support this legislation, thank you. thank you no your letter of support. >> next speaker. the first time that have you been to the mic i am sure. >> good morning, commissioners, and etunova, the commissioner along with the resident of san francisco for 40 years. i strongly support and urge action on this to support the mandatory retrofit. the category of great risk at hand is the earthquake, but more importantly is the risk of not taking action. timely action, because what we have here is a land mine.

what we will have when that land mine goes off is going to be great damage. the damage to both social, cultural and economic, the categories of our neighborhoods are the most vulnerable within this spector of disaster and it is not just what basically will effect the neighborhoods, but also the economic recovery. because, the ability for people to go back to work is basically the ability to live where they live and if not, in their neighborhoods, and if not, the neighborhood support services, the cafes the restaurants. those that they basically within the walking distance of their neighborhoods would continue to support. i urge action on this, the action is never too late if it occurs yesterday, but the em pending earthquake is coming at

this moment, who knows, maybe the next hour. all of that we can't foretell. but what we could foretell is action. and our action will basically take the responsible role to take the safety, health and welfare of our residents, our citizens of san francisco, and the this is a great city. and please, help to make it even a greater city by having the economic social and cultural recovery that is so important along with this mandatory retrofit. the category of costs? we will make that. we will make that happen, but the category of moving forward with a policy that says, we need to do this, we have to do this, and it is never going to be ever too late if it happened now. because we can't take that risk because it is not tomorrow, it could be now, and at this disaster could happen, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker.

>> good morning, ned feny and i am the chair of the co-advisory committee. i wanted to make a few comments, obviously we support this, we sent you a letter to that effect the subcommittee as well. i wanted to mention that the reason that it is on the fast track is because it was a collaborative effort everybody was looked at this. and they have all had a voice and so this is when the public policy works and frankly that is the corn fields critd. he put the group together and caps and he has been diligent and i will mention his name and i also want to mention that this is a work in progress and this is new engineering here. it took a while, even the engineers had to get on board because it is fuzzy engineering you might say. they are used to working on a building and doing the right thing for the entire building. we are asking them to do almost the right thing on the worst part of the building. so it is a little new territory

for them. so, just wanted to tell you that the code advisory committee is helping to define that in the coming months there is a screening form and code legislation and femap87 is in the ordinance and there is a lot of discussion in the back channels in what does that mean? when, engineer comes in, what does ha mean? we will help to define that in the coming months, i want to assure that that is a process. two other people that i want to mention is steve harris and david bonowitz those are two names that you should remember. steve helped to get this issue forward about how engineers could wrap their heads around this and david helps to put together the previous document that led to p807. this is new territory and, we are cutting really incredible new ground here. and frankly we are going to be

an example for a lot of areas in the state and the country. thanks for your support. >> thank you, mr. finean and thank you for your service and we are lucky to have you on the committee and all of your hard work. >> appreciate it. >> thank you. >> next speaker? thank you. >> good morning, commissioners, aim's george obelian long time property owner and native san franciscoan and i want to pledge my support for this effort. it is something that makes me proud to live in this city. san francisco is a special place where great ideas and solutions have a chance to come forth and work and this is one of them. when we set out the policy clearly, we allow the building owners in the city to act. and that is all that they are waiting to do. everyone knows how much real estate has aappreciated in this city and the owner wanted to do

the responsible thing and protect not only their investment but also the city. so, thanks for your support in this. and i hope to see it go through, quickly as possible. >> thank you for all of your work. >> >> next speaker. >> i seeing none, madam secretary? >> there is no further public comment, is there a motion to... >> yeah, commissioner walker wants to. >> i just want to make a motion to lend the commission's support of this ordinance. >> okay. >> i will second that. >> okay and just before we take a vote. just a quick comment. you know, somebody who was in the 89 earthquake and you fast forward to 2013 and i am honored and privileged to be a part of some sort of a solution for the future. but, i had the privilege of sitting in with the mayor and hear him talk and he talked

very passionately about this. he actually made the analogy where he was dispatched by the mayor to go to new orleans and he came away with a very, very strong resolution if he was anything that he could do to make sure that the city is prepared for its, you know, difficult day when it comes. he was going to do everything that he can and it is great to see the commissioners here aboard. and i think that commissioner walker, pointed out very important, when we are talking about it earlier, as commissioners we have strong ties into the different communities. we need to get people's support here. not everybody is going to be happy with every aspect of this but we have to do the right thing for the city and as san franciscoan and so we look forward to working with you pat and micca i want to acknowledge you down there who is hidden in the back and the number two man there to do everything, and he needs support to get this to

the necessary time frame that you need it done and the thanks to corn field for all of his work on this and everybody involved. so with that i would second commissioner walker's motion. >> all the count. >> we have the motion and a second. a roll call vote? >> president mccarthy? >> aye. >> mar? >> yes. >> commissioner clinch? >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner melgar. >> yes. >> and commissioner walker. >> yes. >> and the motion carries. >> our next item. >> item 8, director's report. >> item 8 a update on dbi's finances.

>> >> department of building inspection. this is going to be a very, very, quick presentation. >> yeah, sure. >> and so, as you know we continued to have revenues come in greater than what we had this time last physical year to the tune of 22 percent. our issued permits have continued to come in at about nine percent more than the previous year and the valuation continues to grow in the terms of the issued permits by 25 percent. our revenues we got in the first enstallment of