always been bothering me tremendously over the years that we know when we walk into the garages, down stair space of these apartment buildings we see these studies in sheet rock areas that are going to collapse. i'm so happy that the city administrators office is really thinking ahead because tenants must be given greater chance to be able to stay in their homes with their books, furniture and pets and neighbors. if we can somehow strengthen that ability to stay home it can mean huge benefit to the neighbors how we must rise through maybe 6 months or a year long crisis. i really

admire this work you are doing. thank you very much. >> thank you, i'm with san francisco tomorrow. caps one of soft story building of a much larger array of much more affected buildings. it's a priority that is required. first of all under the previous attempts, 10 thousand of those units were considered rent control which you indicated is rent decontrol by an effect cost. there are mitigations at your hands that need to be put into your legislation. first of all, you have a state required housing element that requires means, resources, that affects keeps the diversity of the city

intact which are there and which the city is in default since it has no reinforceable housing elements. that provides means and resources that are supposed to refer several years ago to the board of supervisors. the means are there if you will put them into function. secondly, under federal supreme court cases, depriving an owner of equity, making that unviable for means of public import if you refer as officers of the court you may recall long island and the robert moses attempt to run free ways, you cannot be private owners in affective viable quit of compensation. the means are at hand. you have for example in deferrable capital programs bond of $150 million a year. a forensic

analysis audit of the mayor's office approved in this case. >> thank you. next speaker please. thank you. next speaker. >> you don't have to go in the same order that i call you. so whoever is next. thank you. >> hi there. my name is heidi turm ian and i'm here to speak on behalf of the earthquake institute chapter. we are a regional member based organization that's dedicated to reducing earthquake risk. we advocate for the development of comprehensive programs. we feel the city and county of san francisco safety implementation program is such a program and the measures will protect the city's inhabitant and make san

francisco a more resilient community. for the northern california cal chapter of the earthquake engineering institute, i want to state that we are in favor of creation of mandatory for wood frame buildings in the city. the proposed ordinance learned from experience from other areas in the city and other areas. there have been inventories in santa clara counties and they have done great work in this area, there are mandatory evaluations ordinances in berkeley andal alameda. we feel practical experience exist to facilitate a program such as san francisco is looking at here today. we feel the cap study to reach a

wide variety of audiences and they have a technical group and many stake holders groups involved in that area and from other cities and other programs that these can help these along. i just would like to say the adoption of the ordinance would be an important milestone. i would like to pledge the support of our organization to support you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm john berry, speaking on behalf of myself. i'm a small time realtor and property manager. i think if ever there is an issue it's in fact that we have to do this from the seismic issue and

light safety issue and dollars cost to be saved by not having to rebuild so many thousands of buildings. i want to address that because that's kind of a given. as economic stuff, i manage about 80 units and in contrast to what your economist has said, i don't think a market rate is fixed given. i know i can market for raised money if there is no soft story issue risk involved . when i rent to place, i have a fire alarm system and it rents for much lower. market value is a benefit. it's a benefit to the property owner. as for the pass through, i have never done pass

throughs that i tell my property owners that it's a lot of hassle. if you get into a huge amount of punish where there is a lot of pass throughs. my reading of the rent control detail is you only pass through half of a cost if it's a 5 unit building or more. a lot of the rent control law talks about passing through half and it's kept by the property owner. that's kind of fair to me. i can be convinced otherwise, maybe but i don't think so. i like to share between the tenants and the owners. i recommend a half cost pass through. it will also save buildings -- >> thank you mr. berry. next speaker. >> hi, good afternoon. my name is maria. i work with the cause -- the organization based in

san francisco mission district and through our work with our members and clients we see a lot of the buildings are in a need of a lot of repairs including seismic retrofitting. we strongly agree that earthquake safety is necessary in our city and it's great that it's such a priority. unfortunately it should not be done at the expense of tenants especially after a hundred percent pass through. the majority of these buildings are under rent control and probably long-term rent control tenants. so an increase of $80 or more would create a situation where tenants would have to leave their units . we want housing safety and security at all levels, that includes earthquake safetien insuring the home is there after and also from eviction and displacement. that is why we

ask that a hundred percent pass through does not happen. also, an automatic hardship petition for anyone who passes through the rent would be more than 30 percent of their monthly income or more. we also ask that there be a cap so that this type of pass through, the seismic retrofitting does not get combined with any other capital improvement so there is a whole package of pass throughs that would create housing unsafety in a housing situation especially for a long-term rent control tenant. thank you for making sure our units are all safe and tenants are able to stay in their home. i think it would be great. >> thank you very much. next

speaker. before we get to you, let me call a few more names. david friedman, grace can, lawrence, mark, henry, kood a. >> good good afternoon supervisors. i would like to acknowledge the incredible work of the caps leadership group in the years before leading up to this legislation. they did an outstanding job on a really broad stakeholder input. i this i this legislation is absolutely essential and i urge you to pass it but i would like to follow-up in a different perspective control. i'm in a high area. i know a

large number of series in the pacific heights area. in the past the orders shown in this economic analysis document would be very difficult for them. this issue of financially vulnerable tents is tenants is not limited to any one area. certainly in some related legislation, to address the issue of the financially vulnerable tenants. it's no good saving the housing by displacing them now. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is laura sament. i'm here to speak or urban planning

and research. we support this legislation before you and advocate the city pass such an ordinance. i think you all know the reasons this ordinance is important to spur. i will quickly reiterate those. we know these buildings are vulnerable. we saw them damaged in the loma prieta earthquake. i serve for the project which conducted technical studies of these vulnerabilities of these buildings. we know that a lot of tenants can be left homeless as a result of this earthquake. most of these homes could collapsed and they have rent control unit. it's probably they would not be replaced by rental units at all as market conditions today often in san francisco have condominiums.

spur strongly advocates that taking steps that shelter in place after the next large earthquake. that means staying in their own homes during repairs. we know that retrofitting these buildings works. it would allow more tenants to stay in san francisco. i urge you to support this ordinance. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> i wish i was better at this there have been some pretty good presentations. i own a building. my name is mark howard. if you seismically reinforce a soft garage at the bottom of the building, the top of the building will fall down all around it. a building is a box. you have to reinforce that

box when it sways in an earthquake all four sides all the way to the top otherwise the top of the building will collapse and the people living up there will not be saved. you can look at the loma linda pictures. what i would like to say is that engineers don't make any money that way, i would like the board to hear a presentation from them and understand what i say. the other thing is that aside from the useless great expense, my 5 unit building would cause $250,000 to retrofit properly. i can have the garage reinforced for $50,000 but it wouldn't do me any good. you have to realize that it's now

coming up with a split roll tax to have all the owners to increase their property taxes by 2 or 300 percent. i don't feel that many of us can withstand all the expense and i think a lot of this we'll have to give up our properties. we will buy something somewhere else. i don't know how that will impact the economic situation in san francisco, but we just can't do it. we are still paying the same maintenance, city tax on water and garbage and although our buildings are worth more until we die. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> supervisors, thank you very much. i'm a private consulting structural engineer in san francisco. i'm here to speak in behalf on the cap ordinance and

seismic safety program being proposed. i commend the supervisors and mayor who have propose td program. i think it is vital as a past member and president of the san francisco commission, i know how hard it was to get this program started, implemented and going. i'm fully in support of this. i hope i speak for the rest of my peers in the engineering community. this is vital and should be pass as soon as possible. we could not wait much longer. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is grace kang and i represent the structural engineering association of california and we endeavor to enhance the life safety and

economic well being of the public through direct involvement in the development of building codes through community education and with legislative and regulatory agency. we provide formal and informal advice to the city of san francisco and in support of this implementation program, they set up a process where sea members. in this regard we have established a working group to participate in the implementation development of the soft frame retrofit ordinance. this working group of structural engineers have met to discuss the aspects of the ordinance. as part of this discussion the group has developed and endorses the following statements of support

for the ordinance. supports the city of county of san francisco's effort to reduce risk through a comprehensive program such as thatten visioned by the safety implementation program and -- can be effective towards risk reduction goals and we'll continue to develop technical criteria appropriate for the ordinances purpose and intent. we will also continue to support the city's implementation of the ordinance through education and guidance of engineers and other stake holders. we look forward to continue our relationship with the county and city of san francisco. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. before we get to mr. -- i will call the final cards. michael louis,

thank you for putting the pronunciation. courtney clarkson and noel cummins. those are all the cards i have. if you have not filled out a card and would like to speak, the cards are at the front. >> good afternoon, i wear two hats one of the president of the san francisco small property owners and the merchants association. personal property owners, these are the ones most affected. even though it's taken over the reduced period of time. it's not going to take as much. they can't split that payment over a large amount of years and then not be up to pass it through the property owners point of view. on the other hand, a lot of

merchants have a lot of money invested in their properties. unlike other tents where they don't have any investment in their properties, the businesses do. they can spend $300,000 to building out spaces. for them it's critical that something be done and this legislation would help them out. if we wait until something happens, they will loss what they have invested. it's a good thing for the small businesses. on the whole i think it's great legislation and i look forward to it passing. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is john pakz ton, i was on the

advisory committee and i'm act ive with spur. i strongly encourage this legislation. my concern is the longevity of the housing stock in san francisco. very few you people realize we have the oldest housing stock in the side of the mississippi and the majority of these buildings were built before world war ii and includes material that is susceptible to decay and deterioration. the cap support that in the magnitude earthquake that about 58,000 residents would lose their home that is about 28,000 housing units. it's not how many housing units we build every year. it's how many we

keep. it's taken the last 15 years to build those 28 units. everybody started off being at each other's throats looking out for each other's best interest. after everybody saw the importance of what was going to happen, we all came together and in the end there is a unanimous conclusion that would support the recommendations you have in front of you now. this is what the caps report looks like. a report that never saved a life, it never prevented property damages. it's only what you folks do with it afterwards and we strongly encourage you to take up this legislation and prove it. this is the first step in many steps in the earthquake safety program and it's going to have the greatest bang for the buck. thanks for your support. >> thank you very much, next

speaker. >> good evening, my name is -- more importantly i have been a residenter renter in san francisco in an apartment in a building that is not seismically safe. i'm under rent control and i have been in that apartment for 20 years. if it means having to pass that assures the safety of me and the cotenants in the apartment of i have no problem with such a pass through and to ensure the safety and resilience of san francisco i fully hope you support this proposition. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker? >> my name is cheryl. i'm a visiting professor as mills college and also a former tenant in a soft story in san

francisco and current tenant in a soft story in the city of berkeley. i completed my education where i studied the building soft story ordinance as wells my dissertation. i would like to offer myself as a resource in the implementation planning going forward for this law bass it is a law that i will like to see pass. the current state of soft story building residents an opportunity -- it's not that -- rather that owners even those that have the desires and resources to make-up grades are stuck in a catch 22 with regards to the pressures they are under in the housing mark. without looking to doing an

upgrade seriously those that do remain the suckers as a disadvantage to the peers that do not. what management does is take that a way, 25 percent of the land building owners who were notified and required to do an evaluation did a retrofit. doing it now is inevitable. so why should you do exactly what berkeley did? they haven't passed their mandatory second phase retrofit ordinance yet and now they are the suckers again because of failure of government action to follow through. and only government action can signal to tenants that it's worth paying more for a retrofit unit. we need all stake holders in the environment to receive that. >> thank you very much. next

speaker? >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is michael wills. i'm an architect and earthquake safety group. i speak in favor of this program because it shows a common sense foresight to have an ordinance that offers and approach to strengthening, financing and a sensitivity to keeping people in their homes. after seeing and working with the details on patrick's committee, i think the city can be proud of this ordinance. it's one that has been drafted with care to all the concerns and not only of the technical seismic committee, technical and seismic professionals, but to the real sense itivity and keeping people in their homes and bringing the financial along with it shows that this

is a program that will take care to make sure that all have access to the things that we all wants which is to make a safer, more residue resilient city. so i strongly urge this. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is david friedman. i'm here representing the earthquake engineering research institute, spur, 38 years of practice as a structural engineer and resident of san francisco. as you have heard, so much work has been put into this. this is a very thought fully put together, very thoroughly put together. i strongly urge your support as well as your initiative for this program. most importantly, though, i think you have the opportunity not only for the city of san francisco but for

the entire bay area demonstrating leadership and finally taking the necessary actions to an abate the risk of these soft story buildings. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is noel cummins. i'm a general contractor and property owner in san francisco. most everyone greece agrees with the seismic retrofit as a worthy goal and i agree. those that don't agree, will financing fall on renters. the disgracement of long-term tenants is a probability. this is a time to find a middle ground that grants benefits to property owners and tenants equally. here are some any

displaced tenant will have a choice of affordable housing rent will stay the same, all rent control laws apply, owners will pass i am improvements to seismic up grades to the tenants and any owner do you doing any seismic upgrades will upgrade for parking. the associated permit fee would be halved. the owner would receive some compensation. >> thank you very much. next speaker? >> hello,