good afternoon. welcome to the land use committee. to my right is supervisor jim and

supervisor david chu. i would like to thank sfgtv for broadcasting. miss miller are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and any other devices. items acted upon today will be on the march 26 board of supervisors agenda. >> thank you. for members of the public who wish to make any public comment on any particular item, there is one item in particular, please fill out a blue card at the front and note the agenda item for which you will be speaking. >> madam clerk item no. 1.

>> for the sacramento neighborhood district. >> this is sponsored by supervisor mike ferrel. >> good afternoon, appearing on behalf of supervisor mark ferrel. want to give you the gist of the legislation. it a simple piece of legislation. several months ago we received a call. he described the unique nature of his property and neighborhood commercial use, a victorian, a designate potential historic resources. the ground level space is not visible from the street with multiple levels of stairs. i have pictures of that if you would like to take a look. the hidden nature of the property

is problematic for most businesses. they did occupy the space for some time and recently vacated. the property was listed on craigslist with no takers. it's zoned for business use. they are given a lack of visibility from the street. the second floor of the property consist of four offices for mental health providers. the floors would have to be compatible with the upstairs use. it seems the ground floor would be provided for mental health providers. the only way to remedy the situation one we felt worth addressing was to a legislation. legislation in this case is needed due to the fact that new medical services uses are prohibited on all floors which is a relative small ncd. when drafting the legislation we want to respect

the concerns of the prohibition in the first place. the concerns. in 1987 when the controls were put in place the concerns that medical services were displacing residential units. we know how important community outreach is, we reached out to fan, and the merchants in the street. they reviewed it and looked at the legislation and i also met with the owner of the property and walked the entire commercial district. we also met with the planning department and legislation they assured us that what we have drafted as far as legislation goes was going to meet our concerns. so, the board of fan, he unanimously approved it. there are technical amendments that

the planning commission recommended. i passed those out unless you want me to read them. they are non-substantive. i think i will spare you the page line and the number. with that i would ask that you adopt the amendments and this is relatively easy piece of legislation but of course in drafting it we want to respect the concerns of the neighborhood commercial district and we ask that you forward this to the full board for recommendation. >> thank you, miss stephanie. is the planning department making a separate presentation or not? >> no that was purposely out of the planning commission unanimously is in support. >> if there are no introductory comments we'll open this up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak in relate to go item no. 1. seeing no one. public comment is closed.

supervisor ferrel, is proposing amendments that are non-substantive. can we take them without objection? so forward. and is it for recommendation? >> i will make a motion. >> cab can we take that without objection? thank you. >> item no. 2. >> the doelger building under landmark no. 10. >> thank you. i'm the sponsor of this landmark. miss brown is here. would you like to make remarks about the landmarking? >> yes. thank you.

good afternoon supervisors, mary brown to present the proposed -- as individual landmark t building was added to the historic preservation in work program in june 2011 to september 19, 2012 and the october 3rd recommendation hearing. the commission voted unanimously for the building based on a historical and architectural buildings. from 1932-1950 served as a base of operations and through extra ordinarily rapid expansion and architectural art expression and extreme modern design and represents a successful merging of the two modern styles.

examples of the design elements influenced by these styles includes a step backcountry way, curved walls and over hangs. features extend to the public lobby area which display art deco in spiert inspired on the door. and pattern railings. the property was recently purchased by jeff dar by and he's been contacted for preservation of the building. mr. dar beis in the process of stabilized the building and rehabilitation and adoptive reuse of the property. a representative from the dar be -- family is here. if approved by the board of supervisors it

will be the 255th landmark duress during it's 45 year preservation program. and also a person's events and architecture in san francisco western half with an area of few landmarks. this concludes my presentation. >> anyone who would like to make a public comment. i have one public comment from ash will key. >> i'm a family representative. we are really excited and happy to support the designation. we are planning on moving our small business to this space and working on reservation to restore the building on how fabulous it was. >> thank you very much. great. is there any other member of the public who would like to

comment on item no. 2? seeing none, public comment is close. i think this is a very strong landmark. the planning department were close to the property owners and it's a beautiful building. i think it does have historical significance. can we have a motion to forward with this origination? then without objection that will be the order. thank you. madam clerk please call item no. 3. >> code regulations. >> thank you very much, supervisors. program director of the arts commission. here before you to ask for these five spaces, it's on a sidewalk where you have

generously us other spaces and i want you to know as a preface that i met with the general manager as well as the street artist who sell regularly at adjacent herman plaza and that particular block, the hotel wants the street artist there. so we met and came up with an idea proposal for you that it would require several exemption police code regulations dealing with the display size of the street artist and dealing with the door ways and distance between street artist. as i mentioned before when i have come before you, ordinance no. 383 authorizes the board of supervisors to designate or

redesignate spaces subject to exemptions of one or more of the police code regulations as long as the board finds the exemption will not be inconsistent with or interfere with the purpose of regulation from which the area is exempted. since 1983, the board made in 40 resolutions since 1983 made such designations with exemptions. so this is no different in that respect. the exemption, basically, you have to picture the sidewalk. it's enormous. it's 46 feet wide. one of the regulation for the street artist is that a street artist display must allow for at least 8 feet of a pedestrian passageway between the edge of

the galileo display and the opposite building. even though we ask for size regulations there would still remain a pedestrian passageway of 41 pete feet between the artist and building and that is the space for the required passageway. i mentioned a street artist space is 4 feet wide by 5 feet at all. and other street artist spaces on that same sidewalk you have allowed an exemption from those regulation because the street artist have larger display in filling their quality crafts. so if you will also exempt them from those size regulations, that would permit their booths to be 8 feet wide by 10 feet

long by 7 feet tall as those booths are in the other spaces in that sidewalk. then finally, i wanted to say to you that you will find in the map that i had submitted with the proposal that these spaces would fall directly opposite door ways of the hotel and i was very sensitive to that and very interested to find out what the hotel manager had to say about it. he says he has no problem with that because again the sidewalk is so wide that even god forbid there would be a disaster, there is enough room for people to get out. and we are asking for the use of these spaces for only one day of the week and that is on saturdays because that's when the artist can really use it. they would

not occupy the spaces other times. also the hotel manager has agreed to alert us in advance of any major event that the hotel would be putting on. i told them i didn't want to have street artist there when there is a big major event and a lot of people there. and finally the last exemption we would ask for is the current, the regulation is that you cannot have a street artist within 5 feet of another street artist and if you exempt the spaces from that regulation, basically you are having a booth right next to each other and you have done that with, i believe it's 15 other spaces on that same sidewalk. so, that's pretty much it for my presentation. we have the market manager, street artist market manager here who could speak also and i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. any questions?

seeing none we'll open to comments. i see one comment card. >> hello, my name is jon tu. i'm the street manager. this place historically that two years ago we lost something like 30 spaces on the plaza when the occupied then camp meant and they gave us a lot of leeway. we liked those spaces and they have become very central and the hotel is okay with it and that's why we are making this formal request. it's only one day, it's

saturday. if there is a major event in the hotel, we will vacate those spaces to them. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues do we have a motion to move to a positive direction? >> so moved. >> no objection? item moved forward. >> item no. 4 -- >> thank you. i will just note that it is the intent of the sponsors of the legislation that today would be an informational hearing. so we'll hear presentation today, we'll take public comments and we'll consider a motion to continue this for one week and next week's land use and economic

development hearing we'll consider whether to forward the items to the full board. so there would be another opportunity during next week's hearing. i'm a cosponsor with this legislation along with supervisor chu. we know from experience that soft story buildings do not do well in earthquakes. we have many soft story buildings in san francisco including a lot of rent control housing stock and this housing stock is at risk for collapse during a major earthquake and we are aware that our next big one is likely to be larger than the loma prieta earthquake. quake preparedness has a lot of aspects in terms of responding well and perhaps we can do is make people stay in their home

after an earthquake and we do not have an exceptionally large number of people to displace. the purpose of this legislation is to help keep people in their homes and make sure when we rebuilding from the next earthquake that we don't lose a number of rent control units. i think we've crafted a very balance piece of legislation that will move us forward in our safety of housing stock and anytime you mandate people to do work on their homes, there is cost and disruption involved and i don't want to minimize that this is going to be easy for everyone. i want to really compliment the mayor's office for working really hard to come up with a process for home owners and tenants. >> thank you, i also want to echo for all the folks working

on this topic. this is a situation that we've known for many many years we as a city have to grapple with. we know the big one, the significant earthquake that we are expecting will happen over the next 30 years will be 2-3 times as significant as the loma prieta earthquake and in that earthquake over 7,000 units were destroyed. in the northridge quake there were over 34 thousand buildings destroyed. the last time our city had a significant conversation around earthquake preparedness -- i was proud to have worked and sphere head

that project. at the time in 2010 we decided as policy makers how we would address an impact in soft stories and this legislation in 2013 is a great effort in that regard. i want to thank patrick and the earthquake safety group for all the work that you have done to develop these policies and i also want to thank the banking communities and i know there is a variety of comprehensive financing options for rebuilding and i know in the coming months there is proposals to move forward. i want to hear from the department to present the proposals and use this day as an opportunity to give feedback and any additional remaining feedback by next week so we can

move this legislation forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors. very exciting day to be here. this is an ordinance that has been in the making for a better part of the decade and to see it come to a fruition with such a huge amount of support is very encouraging for our city. i think you already addressed this issue. the idea is to be able to keep 58,000 san francisco residents in their home during an earthquake. we believe that every san francisco an has a right to have stable housing. the fact that this is by the mayor's public office and they will know this is about safety and not about politics. i'm sure with the support that you have in this room we have over 35 letters in support of this ordinance and in addition to legislation before you as supervisor chu mentioned we'll have additional legislation as

part of our menu of financing options to have a public financing options. in addition to that we are also working with the realtor association to make sure that disclosure laws adequately cover this and make sure that people buying and selling these buildings are fully aware of the ordinance requirements and myself and the city staff is here to answer any questions that may come up. thank you. >> thank you, mr. leaney. >> so mr. egan, do you want to present? >> thank you supervisors. control economic developments. our office issued an economic report on this. i will make 3 points about it. first of all,

like many forms of legislation it has cost and benefits as the supervisors have mentioned the benefits of this legislation are highly sensitive to the probability of an earthquake. those benefits include future repair cost as has been mentioned for people to be able to stay in their home after an event. certainly improved life safety. these benefits are highly sensitive to earthquake probabilities and based on the numbers from usgs, the most recent numbers we estimate there is about a 2 percent chance of an earthquake and the 2 percent probability alone would justify this immediate spent you sped expenditure. a

second point is that as a mandated capital improvement, owners of property that are subject to the rent stabilization board have the opportunity to pass a hundred percent of this through to tenants. in practice property owners will not be able to fully pass a hundred percent. but for tenants who are paying significantly below market rate they may absorb a hundred percent of the cost which works out somewhere $39 a month. the final point i will make in respect to that is that one thing that is not clear based on the extensive research at the caps committee has done is how retrofitting improving is survivability. what we are

asking at the tenants share the cost. there are stake holders who get benefits. property owners get more value due to retrofitting and housing stock that better meets the city's post disaster plans and policies relating to shelter and place, for example. so the only point we would make and we don't believe this has any net economic impact, but the only point our analysis suggest is the city take a close look at the allocation and cost benefits and consider whether or not further study is necessary to see if the benefits exceed the cost in benefits in particular. in that point i will take any questions. >> think thank you. >> what did you mean by the comment that impractical

reality that property owners couldn't pass through all of the hundred percent of the cost to the tenants? >> well, they legally could but the question if they already had a tenant that was already paying close to market rent and then they attempted to say i'm going to raise your rent. the tenant might leave so they run a risk of charging above market. as any landlord in a non-rent control building would face anytime someone is trying to race someone's rent. >> this is more theoretical? >> well, yeah, it's certainly something that is reflecting the market and not the law. the law says a hundred percent. >> right. is there any data is that we have that suggest that with a market rate if you raised it by $80 that the

tenant would leave. is there some kind of progression that shows that. in this current mark, i don't see that. >> right. it is a 20 year period as a pass through and the market rate is what it is. it's not what it is plus $80. i grant you that it's increasing rapidly in the current market. i think the reason property owners don't have that additional amount is because the demand is able to support what it supports and nothing more. but again, as we've looked at the distribution of tenants and how long they have lived in their property and about a quarter of tenants in san francisco have lived there less than two years. those are the ones that are least likely to get the full amount t vast amount of rent control in san francisco are below market. >> thank you. >> thank you,