like to that can the folks involved in the caps study. i do have a question around tenant pass throughs and can you address the perspective of the working group and i'm hoping there might be someone from the rent standpoint. >> absolutely. i think it's important that you heard today that if you look through the ordinance language. not once does it mention pass through. these are laws which are currently on the books and we believe the process works in our significant meetings we've had with tenant communities and with the ram port, we know there are hardship applications available for disabled and senior citizens and people who can not afford a resident increase in this nature. i know they are one of five

organizations that receive funding from san francisco to help people with this process. with a we would like to do and i would like to give credit to supervisors breed for the amendment in the ordinance that there is now amendment for community outreach. this is a broad base piece of legislation which is in a 30 year plan, but to put it in this ordinance is something we need to do with significant outreach to the community, to the existing city departments that are going to be plan checking this, but to really make sure that if someone can't afford to pay for this, there are avenues that someone can take and i'm happy to have you come up to discuss the detail hardship of this process. >> i think it would be helpful. >> thank you. i'm available for

any other questions. >> supervisor executive director of the rent board. i don't want to insult your intelligence but i'm going to assume you know nothing about our process. seismic work required bylaw that this category falls into is passed and amortized over 20 years. another capital i am improvements depends on the size of the building depending on the amount of pass through. for buildings that are 5 or fewer units there is a hundred percent pass through but phased over 20 years and tenants get a 5 percent rent increase every year. it's phased in at 5 percent through year. >> 5 percent of pass through amount, not rent each year.

>> it's 5 percent of the rent until you exhaust the pass through. you can't have more increase on top of your annual rent increase. for buildings 6 and up then you have the 5050 pass through but amortization is fewer. i realize the community might differ about the the results of our hardship. for people who are poor t hardship provision work, for people who are moderate income, middle income, it is not a slam dung that you are going qualify for hardship. we used to be that you will not pay more than 35 percent. more people pay that towards rent. for someone on ssi or

unemployed, there is no problem. they will qualify. for persons who are disabled. the person in that situation is unlikely to change. for someone who is unemployed, we give them 6 months to get a job. we give them a year and if you still don't have employment in a year, come back and show us that you need additional time. i think the problem is that there are certain provisions that a company are hardship procedures and that's where it doesn't tend to be automatic. for example if someone has a 3 bedroom apartment and they had their family grow up there but now their kids are all gone away to college and they are living there by themselves they might be required to get a roommate. if they are disabled and that would be a burden to them, that would be taken into account. likewise if someone is

a student and their incumbent reaches the ratio of 35 percent, they might be required to at least work part-time. if you are a trust fund baby but paying 35 percent of your nuk # for rent, you are not going to qualify. there are procedures that make 35 percent the beginning of the inquiry but not a slam dunk. as i said, people who are going to be displaced by a resident increase would certainly kwa you have for a hardship extension under our current procedures absent from the board. >> do you have data from applications that come in and result in different manners. >> i can get you statistics but anecdotally we get about 15 a

month. when we have more petition, we have more hardships. other than i would say 95 percent of hardships application are granted. >> thank you. >> i just had a couple of questions about the process and procedure as well. how long does it take so once you submit what is the lensdz length of time? >> if a tenant filed a hard ship application they can file at any time. for example if you are able body now you can pay for a pass through but if you have a -- if your financial circumstances change, it's hardship and that is not the case for other types of passers. but once the tenant files, it pachltsz passes.

they are not displaced. it stays the pass through and the board looks to make sure the figures meet the 35 percent ratio, they kick it back to one of my administrative law judges who holds a hearing. the whole process probably takes 2-3 months but in the meantime while that process is going forward, the pass through is stayed and the tenant is not obld obligated to pay. >> it takes 2-3 months to pass this? >> more or less. we have an incentive to expedited this. it would be after a lot of postponement because they are ill or something like that. usually what i do is try and call the other side. call the landlord and say could you

please extend this pass through and usually they are cooperative. >> how long would you know this -- how well-known do you think this application is amongst renters? >> we think it's quite well-known because anytime we send a decision that contains a pass through. we send out a memorandum you mean in three languages that refer tenants to organizations to do actual outreach around hardship applications. i will admit, it's not pleasant. tenants, there is no privacy involved. once you say i cannot afford to pay a pass through that the landlord is required to. you have to prove that it you have to show me your expenses and it's invasive. >> when you say trilingual i'm

assuming cantonese and spanish. are they also offered into other languages? >> we can get translators for any language. >> you said that certain categories, it might be automatic? so disability, senior citizens perhaps? >> if you are on social security, ssi disability, you still have to go through process. you have to file a petition, application for hardship t board has to send it for a hearing. if you are on ssi, that hearing is going to take 10 minutes. the landlord can come to this hearing. he will say i see a mercedes in the driveway, but to be honest the landlords don't appear and trust that alj's known a bona fide case can see one and most of the time they are granted. >> is there anything in this

legislation that would require if there is a notice provided that a particular building needs to go for the board to go out? >> i don't believe there is anything written but we would have no problem providing such notice in as many languages as you wish. >> thank you. i have a comment and some questions for mr. leaney. i think as i mentioned in the beginning, there is absolutely no doubt about it that this legislation will create some challenges for property owners and for tenants. not all tenants, not all property owners, but for some there are many tenants who are struggling to pay the rent they have now and a pass through can be a hard ship there also. many property

owners who are also quite living under on the edge and this is a hard ship for them. so it's good that we have a robust hardship program for tenants and that's a good thing. mr. leaney can you talk about the resources that we can make available to help property owners particularly smaller property owners go through this process and be able to pay for this retrofit? >> sure. absolutely. to answer your question, wiener, when i came on the board they wanted to make sure before we push any legislation forward that we had comprehensive financing option for this. as we saw through the brick building ordinance that had a $150 million bond that became difficult to qualify for and a large amount of those funds were not in use. in

addition to the public financing component which i spoke a little bit about earlier which will be under trailing legislation, we had about 15-20 private banks come forward and answer the mayor's call to allow financing for this. on the public aspect see that and the financing industry see that there is less red tape in that process. we tried to approach it on both fronts. these banks will offer several different option and are centered around the idea that they would allow refinances and full additional funds. we would benefit having low interest rates and the higher the cost of these retro fits, not to mention that it's protecting the investment. also important to knows that these i am improvements are not subject to reclassifying the property as a

higher tax rate that states law allows you to do that as retrofit. additionally we are looking into the loan process and these buildings maybe historic and landmarks. it would require a vote. with the mellow roos, they effectively become the voting body so they

get to decide between the group when money is build out for these i am improvements that is repaid for their property taxes and gives them the mechanism without taking a loan individually. that is an interesting feature of it. if these properties change hands. the loan actually goes with it and the person who originated the loan is relieved from the debt. >> then in terms of the actual work that's being done, there was reference made before which is issued that i have been thinking about. in terms of making sure that the process for property openers owners who are complying with the law and somehow got financing and want to do the work and have to get to the planning department and planning of building inspection. what is your competence level that will our

policy intent to expedited this process to make it efficient as possible that planning and dbi are going to be able to do that and by doing that, are we going to then be slowing things down for everyone else doing other work. i know that for both departments we have a boom bus staffing funding model which i think is terrible for a policy but it's how we do it. so if you can comment on that. >> absolutely. i do have a tremendous amount of confidence that the acting director is going to set up a program to administer this. we've met with them on several different levels. this is something when

you hear complaints about the permit process and if they are doing this over the counter and the drawings are done to their standards they should be able to walk out of there. >> how about the planning department? >> it's been very helpful. it's typically not visible from the street. we have been able to work with scott sanchez and some of the staff in instances where a brace frame is noticeable. they have guidelines not only for their staff but something that needs to be distributed to the public so when they apply for the permit they can see what is expected in the drawings.

>> i would encourage you to work very closely with the department and particularly the store preservation to make sure we have an efficient process the place. we domestic violence and sexual assault a situation situation in the mission and they had a major problem getting through the historic preservation section. the review was they were going to make them change the retrofit. it's not an aesthetic choice. i think it's going to be very important to make sure. it's great that we are focusing on dbi but there is cases going through the planning department but we have to make sure it's not making the wheel. >> hopefully we'll address those issues. >> we'll have to go much deeper in the planning commission. and one last thing there was a mention before about property

taxes and resasment. can you comment on that? this work because it's seismic workman dated bylaw is not subject to reassessment. they tend to put work in the permit. you might be doing a seismic upgrade and doing kitchen remodels and those types of work. one of the things important to us, not simplifying by the process and to help the tenant community because we heard their cost where they add on work. so there is language in our ordinance that actually says the work under the scope of the permit cannot include some of the ancillary work. shiite it should be very clear. >> thank you very much. >> any additional questions or comments? supervisor kim? >> i do just want to acknowledge as supervisor

wiener and president chu did on all the work that was put into this legislation. i know several years of work and i do remember when we were campaigning in 2010 it was often a topic of debate. so i think it's really important that this is finally moving through. i have tremendous concern as many of public on many of our older buildings. it's really important that we do what we can to protect it. i'm still curious as we move through this. i would like to learn more about the hardship application and the number we get through the year and what the rate is. i understand it's a complicated process and what will be made to ease that. i know it's very in vase vasive in terms of people's privacy. i

know what people brought up it was pass through and i hope we can have a conversation on that. it's separate from this building code but currently in this residential is rental market that happen we have people worried in this climate and we do what we can to protect our people along that presentations and what that pass through looks like. i understand it was on the intentional tenant apply to this process. because that i think our property owners are more apt to do this application. a lot of tenants i work with are more disabled or older and not able to engage in this process as this one. i certainly think this conversation is brought forthwith a lot of thought and

consideration and the parties involved with it. >> thank you. i would like to make a brief comment that i completely agree. we need to make the hardship process easy and smooth for people who are -- who want to or who are qualified to apply for it. but i think it's so important for us as we work through the details and making sure that we can apply this ordinance in a fairway, fair to everyone that we constantly remind ourselves of the big picture. and that is when we have a major earthquake, when it's going to be most likely much much bigger than loma prieta. if we have our soft story buildings, these primarily rent controlled and other housing units collapse, we are in for a catastrophe. we debate a lot about gentrification in san francisco

and dislocation of communities, we ain't seen nothing yet. if we are negligent enough to allow this housing stock to collapse and be badly damaged in the next earthquake, we are going to see neighborhoods and communities get absolutely ripped apart and we have the obligation to make sure it does not happen. we have known for a long time what we need to do. we haven't done it partly because of lack of political will for some period of time and partly because it's a difficult process and we are finally at a point where we can do something about it, we have seen that the volunteer retrofit program, god police the people who have done it, but it has not worked. it has not caused enough buildings to be retro fitted. i think this is ab important part of legislation. i think it's important to get it signed into law. if there is no additional

comments, i would enter tain a motion to done continue this next week to a full board. can we have that motion. >> i will make the motion. >> mad clerk are there any other items? no. no further matters. >> we are adjourned.

>> on december 28, 1912. san francisco mayor, sonny jim rolph stared into the crowds of those who have gathered. a moment in history. the birth of a publicly own

transit system. san francisco municipal railway. muni as it would become to be known. happy birthday, muni, here is to the next 100 years. the birth of muni had been a long-time coming. over the years the city was disjointed privately owned companies. horses and steam and electric-powered vehicles. creating a hodgepodge of transit options. none of them particularly satisfying to city residents. the city transit system like the city itself would have changes during the san francisco earthquake. the transition that will pursue from this aftermath would change

san francisco's transportation system once again. facilitated by city boss, abe ruth, ushering in the electric city car. the writing was on the wall. the clammer had begun for the experiment including public transit people. owned by the people and for the people. the idea of a consolidated city-owned transit system had begun traction. and in 1909, voters went to the polls and created a bond measure to create the people's railway. would become a reality three years later. on december 28, 1912, mayor sonny rolph introduced the new

geary electric streetcar line and the new san francisco railway. that he said would be the nucleus that would host the city. and san francisco gave further incentive to expand the city's network. a project by way of tunnel leading into chinatown by way of north beach. in december the first streetcar was driven into the tunnel. just two years after its berth, muni had added two lines. and k, l and m lines that span out from westportal. in 1928, the j line opened heading west to the beach. in 1944 san francisco voters

finally approved muni take-over of the market street railway. by then motor bus and trolley bus improvement had given them the ability to conquer san francisco's hills. after the war most of the street-car lines would be replaced with motor or trolley bus service. in 1947, the mayor recommended replacing two lines with motor coaches. and it appeared that san francisco's iconic cable cars had seen their final days. entered mrs. cluskin, the leader to save the cable cars. arguing that the cable cars were a symbol of the city, and she entered a charter placed on the november ballot. it passed overwhelmly. the california street cable

railway was purchased by the city in 1952. there were cut backs on the cable car system and in 1957 only three lines would remain. the three lines that exist today. in 1964 the cable car's future as part of california's transit system was sealed when it was proclaimed a national historic landmark. in february, 1980, muni metro were officially inaugurated. in that same year, muni received its first fleet of buses equipped with wheelchair