into condos. number two, as muni says on their signs in froth of the bus, we want equal justice for all. number three, the french proclaim, liberty, equality, and [speaker not understood]. liberty, equality, and [speaker not understood]. god commanded love your neighbor as yourself. number five, [speaker not understood] love you and want you to live forever in paradise. [speaker not understood]. and happy easter to all. >> thank you very much. thank you. is there any additional public

comment? and this is item number 1. the tic matter is item number 2. so, is there any other public comment for item number 1 having to do with the amendment of the planning code, not the tics? no, that is the next item. is there any additional public comment as to item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, this matter is in the hands of the committee. >> i have one more question. i apologize, for mr. sider. and although the gentleman was speaking on -- i don't know why he kept saying that, sorry. mr. adams. although the gentleman was speaking on a different item, it did remind me if the tenant is a senior or a member of the disability community, are there additional protections for that tenant when their unit becomes -- turns from rental to homeownership? >> under our program there are

no specific provisions outside of other current laws that would apply to them. so, there's nothing particular to the procedures manual that calls out those populations of being under different rules under conversion. >> is this a situation that we've seen yet? when we have bmr rental convert to homeownership? >> the senior disabled or -- we've had very few conversions. ~ rentals we don't -- and i certainly don't have today the ability to kind of draw generalities out from the experiences. there are a few cases currently and buildings that were approved a very long time ago where the rules were quite distinct. so, we are working on a couple cases currently to try and ensure that tenants' rights are being protected. i'm afraid i can't speak to kind of general trends, but there have been very few conversions from ownership to rental to date. >> i'm happy to support this today, but i would love to have a conversation before this goes to the full board about some of these circumstances. >> okay, yes. >> thank you.

>> thank you, supervisor kim. colleagues, any additional comments or questions? can we have a motion to forward this item with recommendations? >> yes. did we make the remits? >> oh, you're right. we do have amendments. is there a motion to adopt the amendments? can we do that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> thank you for reminding me. ~ now, can we forward this with positive recommendation? >> mr. chair, i believe this is coming out of the committee report. >> as a committee report to be heard tomorrow at the board. any objection, colleagues? that will be the order. [gavel] >> okay. so, item number 2 having to do with condominium conversion impact fees, a couple of thing. first of all, we're going to pass over this for now. we are setting up an overflow room because -- in the south light court. in addition, i just want to let people know -- let people know if we could close the door, please.

thank you. that item number 2, it is the intent of the lead author, supervisor farrell that we continue this to april 15th. that motion will be entertained at the appropriate time. people have every right to make public comment today, but this will be back in the hands of the committee on april 15th. so, just to let people know. and i don't know if there is any way of conveying that to the people who are outside in line and heading to the south light court, but ms. miller, i don't know if someone from the clerk's office could go down there. great. so, why don't we call item number 4, please. >> item number 4 is an ordinance amending the planning code, by adding a new appendix m to article 10 (preservation of historical, architectural, and aesthetic landmarks), to create the market street masonry historic district, a discontiguous landmark historic district; and making findings, including environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan; and planning code, section 101.1(b). ~ district >> we have supervisor kim as the lead sponsor. supervisor kim, for item number 4, did you want to make

introductory remarks? yeah. one second. to be clear, for item number 2 on tics, the item -- the intent is to continue it to april 15th at which point there will be a full hearing. people have every right to make public comment today as well before the motion to continue is considered. but if you don't, there will be a full hearing on april 15th. yeah, and we're not hearing that matter now because they're setting up an overflow room in the south light court. [speaker not understood]. >> you can make it now or you can make it on april 15th or you can make it both. it's up to you, but we are very unlikely to be taking any action on this today other than to postpone it for three more weeks to april 15th. [speaker not understood]. >> when we call the item, you can make public comment if you'd like to. thank you. okay.

as to item number 4, supervisor kim. >> i don't have a lot to say about this item, but i do want to thank planning for all of their work on this. actually learned quite a bit about this part of my district and i found it incredibly fascinating, the study of these historic buildings in noncontiguous district. its was fascinate tog read about the history and the history of the residents that live in the building. and what a hub this part of market street was and historically. so, i'm happy to be a co-sponsor of this legislation today. >> thank you, supervisor kim. mr. [speaker not understood] from the planning department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. moses [speaker not understood] from the planning department staff to present the market street masonry district pursuant to article 10 of the planning code. in june of 2011, the historic preservation commission developed its work program and identified these eight architecturally significant buildings on and near market street between franklin and valencia streets for further

study in a discontiguous landmark district. on the overhead we have a map of the area. the buildings are highlighted in blue that are the eight. because of the nature of the buildings with several businesses and residents, the planning department conducted -- produced promotional materials and conducted extensive outreach to the property owners, tenants, commercial tenants, government officials and community stakeholders. a letter and packet of information was mailed to tenants and property owners of the proposed landmarks and the planning department staff visited each of the commercial tenants to discuss the proposed landmark designation. department also met one on one with all but one of the property owners and discussed resident and commercial tenant issues as well as the benefits and responsibilities of property owners. we also produced a self-guided walking tour of the district. department staff then proceeded with the research of the buildings and drafted the designation report.

to summarize, immediately after the earthquake and fire of 1906, which incinerated the whole area out to octavia, thousands of temporary buildings were built throughout the burned areas. it took a few years, but eventually permanent buildings made of durable materials such as these were built. the general characteristics that unify these buildings in the proposed district began with the dates of construction being built between 1911 and 1925. most were designed by master architects. for each buildings, the architects used a formal three-part arrangement consisting of a base, often with commercial store front. main portion or column often with residential floors and decorative top, either cornice or decorative parapet. projecting bay windows visually reinforced the vertical emphasis while functionally increasing light and air into the interior of many of the buildings. all are three to five stories tall and are built out to their lot lines. most are mixed use with

commercial ground floor uses and residential above. the eight buildings that constitute the district are all significant for their high quality architectural expressions and high style designs by master architects. these buildings exemplify the highly developed skills of master trades men such as masons as seen in a two-toned brick work at 16 45 market street and the sheet metal workers at 150 franklin street and 16 95 market street where paneled bay windows and highly ornamental projecting cornices are particularly significant. all of the buildings retain a high level of integrity that define their unique architectural character. the historic preservation commission and the planning commission voted unanimously to approve and recommend to the board of supervisors approval of the district. the hpc found that the proposed designation will protect valuable historic resources while broadening the available

preservation incentive for owners of designated property. the planning commission found that the proposal was consistent with the general plan would not require amendments to the general plan, and would not conflict with the sustainable communities and strategies for the bay area. the planning commission added that these buildings represent a model for development for the market and octavia plan. no building owner, business owner, or resident has opposed the designation. that concludes my report. >> thank you, mr. [speaker not understood]. colleagues, if there are no comments or questions, we will open up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to comment on item number 4 relating to the market street, masonry historic district proposal? i see no members of the public so we will close public comment. [gavel] >> colleagues, are there any additional comments? seeing none, is there a motion to advance item number 4 to the board with recommendation? >> make that motion. >> can we take that without objection?

that will be the order. [gavel] >> thank you. >> ms. miller, are we ready for item number 2 yet? is the overflow room set up? oh, it's not set up yet? okay. >> [inaudible]. >> okay. in that case, why don't we go to item number 5. madam clerk, can you please call item number 5? >> item number 5 is an ordinance amending the building code to establish a mandatory seismic retrofit program for wood-frame buildings of three or more stories or two stories over a basement or underfloor area that has any portion extending above grade, and containing five or more dwelling units where the permit to construct was applied for prior to january 1, 1978, and the building has not been seismically strengthened; establishing a fee for administering the program; adopting environmental findings and findings of local conditions under california health and safety code, section 17958.7; establishing an operative date; and directing the clerk of the board to forward the legislation to specified state agencies. ~ buildings >> we did hear this item last week as an informational item and then continued it to this week. mr. otellini. >> good afternoon, supervisors. not too much to tell you other than what has changed since last week when we were here discussing the matter. but i think you will all are aware of the issues pending before you of this legislation and hopefully this is something

we can move out of committee with a great amount of consensus today and back to the full board. i won't waste your time going into any spiel unless you have any questions for me at this time. >> colleagues, are there any questions or comments? thank you, mr. otellini. >> thanks. >> okay. so, we will now open up item number 5 for public comment. >> [speaker not understood]. >> supervisor kim, yeah, if you have any amendments, why don't you describe them now. >> yes, i want to introduce an amendment to the building code. let me get the page. the amendment says there will be a disclosure requirement by property owners if they do decide to go through the

hardship -- this is on page 17. so, if it is that a landlord decides to participate in the pass through to the tenant, we would amend this legislation to page 17 line 19, b, that the city intends each landlord who files an application for certification of capital improvement costs concurrently provides written notice of hardship application procedures to each affected unit and sign a declaration under penalty of perjury so attesting. and that the city administrative code residential rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance be amended within 12 months of the effective date of this ordinance to address this provision. and, so, that is the amendment that we are introducing today. but just in term of some of the concerns that had come up last week around the 100% pass through to the tenants, i know there is an ongoing discussion with the mayor's office and the tenants around what we can do to ease what has been called a

cumbersome process through the hardship application rather than addressing the 100% pass through issue. i was hoping [speaker not understood] from the mayor's office could speak a little bit to this. in supporting this legislation, for me i just want to ensure that we have some commitment from the mayor's office and try to figure out how we can ease -- >> if i may ask, if there are members of the public that seem to be a number of side conversations going on now. ~ and if we could ask people if you do want to speak to someone, if you could take it out into the hallway because it is disruptive of the proceedings. okay. the door is closing. president chiu, did you want to say something before -- >> just a quick thing. first of all, i appreciate the amendments that supervisor kim has offered. we certainly heard last week and in recent weeks the concerns from tenants about the

pass through component of the legislation and on the impact of their ability to -- the ability of tenants to stay in their units given some of these issues. this is a concern that i certainly have shared and i want to thank the tenant advocates as well as the mayor's office on housing as well as the folks who have been working on this legislation for thinking through this in recent weeks. happy to support the amendments. it was actually an idea that i had mentioned last week and think it makes a lot of sense. i do want to say in part because supervisor kim and i can't speak because we both serve object this committee privately, i plan to introduce trailing legislation to help address some of the hardship application processes for tenants that seek an exemption from the pass through. i understand that a number of these ideas are ideas that mr. buckley and others have had with tenant advocates and i just want to summarize for folks what we plan for the trailing legislation to contain would be essentially three things. first of all, simplifying the

documentation needed for tenants to demonstrate hardship. secondly, specifying the income levels under which a hardship application would be approved. and thirdly, specifying the circumstances under which an approved hardship application can be appealed by a property owner. do understand there are still conversationses about exactly the precise language of this trailing legislation with the tenants community and the mayor's office, but i just want to say that i am fully committed to moving forward with this legislation and colleagues hope to have your support as we move forward to protect tenants as we ensure that they're also protecting their housing stock from the next big earthquake. i just wanted to say that and also thank mr. buckley for the work i know you have done to discuss these issues as well. >> okay, thank you. mr. buckley? i'm sorry. again, i'm going to ask that people refrain from side conversations. it is disruptive of the hearing. mr. buckley?

>> so, president chiu is correct in the sense that we i think agree on general principles. we're going to work with the tenant community and president chiu's office to create some changes within the hardship application process. i would defer to dan wolf basically to answer specific questions you have about how the process is now and how those changes could likely -- what changes would likely result. i think president chiu is correct. i think the idea is for folks who are on fixed government benefits that have already been means tested, those folks should have a more expedited process, more expedited process through the hardship application. and then i would also say that in addition to that, we would have to [speaker not understood] for residents who say they are on social security. there hasn't been means tested, we would have to essentially create the criteria around an asset assessment. but the idea would be to avoid

any unnecessary hearings for residents who are on a fixed benefit. and i think that's, you know, within the interest of both the tenant community, both in the interest of the [speaker not understood] community who in many cases, you know, i think everyone agrees that the process take a little too long than is necessary. >> supervisor kim? >> okay. no, that actually answers my question. and just if we could get, you know, a commitment from you on behalf of the mayor's office to ensure we are able to move through with this trailing legislation before supporting -- >> you definitely have our commitment to do so and we look forward to doing it. and we hope to do it quickly as well. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisor kim. okay, colleagues, if there are no additional comments or questions, at this time we will open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to comment on item number 5? i do have two cards.

henry carnilowitz and bernie [speaker not understood]. if there are any other members of the public who want to comment on item number 5, soft story seismic retrofits, fill out one of the cards at the front. public comment will be for two minutes. [speaker not understood] san francisco tomorrow. i believe you all should have substantial copy now. emphasizing when i spoke earlier and making further comment. the position i have, this is just an amendment following supervisor kim's, in effect, intent. the city does not have the institutional or resource means to deal with a seismic event in as near anticipated time as six years. there must be an ancillary program that provides enormous resources that we can anticipate. they are not in place now.

i have provided some of the means of finding the funding sources and institutional means. so, i'm suggesting that you amend, in effect, your ordinance which must take place, but amend it on a time certain open-ended allowing you time to establish the [speaker not understood] and resource means such as a urban development corporation that has been successfully undertaken in places like new york and boston. we are very backward on these things. in other words, we need a supplement. i'm going to give you, if you don't mind my hand script, you can edit it anyway you like. this is simply to say go ahead with it, mandate it, but leave it open for future functional modification. do you understand what i'm saying?

i would like to hear your response. >> are you talking ~ are you done with your public comment? [speaker not understood]. >> then next speaker, please, mr. carnilowitz. good afternoon, supervisors. henry [speaker not understood] president of the small property owners of san francisco. we support the ordinance for the [speaker not understood] retrofitting and we like to see the ordinance not being tinkered with when it comes through the pass through. however, we do understand hardships so, that we would support, however would like to see the ordinance not being, again, repeat, tinkered with as far as the hardship for the pass through, that stays 100%, not be reduced at any amount. supervisor david chiu i think said for hardship. we understand that. otherwise we'd like to see it as is. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. carnilowitz.

is there any additional public comment on item number 5? come on up. [speaker not understood], and i'm speaking for myself for a change. i think this one is going to dramatically affect people with disabilities who are required to live on the ground floor of places. a number of years ago, supervisor ammiano brought something forward about illegal in-laws, except for the height limit. that unfortunately did not pass, but we all know there are hundreds, maybe thousands of illegal in-laws in this city

and those probably have actually helped the seismic problems with those kinds of buildings, with exactly this kind of building. i'm a little concerned that if people are senior, disabled, and living in an illegal inlaw and then the city come in to inspect this, ~ then that person is going to be thrown out of what is now an illegal portion of the building. and to no good effect. can we move forward with making those currently illegal inlaw with a height limit exemption, can we move forward with making those legalized? ~ in-lawses thank you. >> thank you very much. i have two additional cards, shannon levinson and chris poland.

good afternoon, supervisors. hi. [speaker not understood], san francisco apartment association. thank you all for your hearing last week and this week and to the mayor's office and the task force this is' been going on and on for months and months and years and years. we would like to speak in support of this legislation, the amendments that were well negotiated with all of us. ~ that's and thank you. >> thank you, [speaker not understood]. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm chris poland, structural engineer, chairman and senior principal of dag an corporation engineers, spur [speaker not understood]. i'm here to speak on behalf of spur in support of this legislation and we urge you to move it forward. in 2009 spur published a framework of what san francisco needs to be prepared for the next great earthquake. the plan calls for a wide variety of seismic mitigation activities that will greatly

improve san francisco's ability to respond and recover many of those things you have included in the san francisco general plan now. one of the most critical needs is to retrofit our most vulnerable residential buildings. [speaker not understood] our neighborhood is to be secure, [speaker not understood] shelter people who live there so they can get back to work within weeks. okay. for people to be able to go back to work and restore the city, they need to be in their homes. their kids need to be able to go back to school. their local businesses need to be operating. we believe that 95% of the work force needs to be able to shelter and place in order to allow quick recovery. unfortunately over half of our residential units in san francisco don't meet this goal. as we know from the little loma-prieta earthquake, san francisco has a unique style of multi-family housing that is particularly vulnerable. these soft story buildings are three stories or more in height, they have five units, house nearly 60,000 people and over 2000 small businesses. if they're not retrofitted, most of the occupants will need

shelter. understand they'll be safe but they're going to need shelter for at least two years after the earthquake and small businesses will fail immediately. san francisco does not have room for the temporary housing. the people who are affected are most likely going to need to move to other cities, probably never to return to san francisco. fortunately we have the opportunity to dramatically change that outcome. this mandatory retrofit program provides strengthening to soft story buildings to make them safe and in most cases able to support shelter in place. the cost is very affordable and does not require the occupants to relocate during construction. while this program provides obvious benefits to the [speaker not understood], and occupants, the biggest gain is to the city. the city's work force will be able to return to work quickly and rebuild the city and the city's economy. i urge you on behalf of spur to support this legislation and move it forward. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, and let me call two additional cards i have. josephine [speaker not

understood] and alex [speaker not understood]. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tom [speaker not understood], department of building inspection. [speaker not understood] we are totally supporting it's ready to take over and then to get [speaker not understood] and also to plan check this legislation. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker [speaker not understood]. i would say let's try to keep the 100% pass through because many of the small property owners will have to mortgage that retrofit fee and the mortgage of that is probably 2 to 3 times over the lifetime -- i mean, the interest accrued to mortgage the pass through -- i mean, the retrofit cost will be probably

2 to 3 times the cost itself. so, we are paying a lot of interest to help the retrofit to be finished. and that is just, you know, 100,000 or $200,000 on a $100,000 retrofit. so, that's a lot of money [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is alex coo. i just want to explain about the difficulties [speaker not understood] in san francisco. i know that lots of the tenants, they become concerned about the land -- about the ability department's requirement. [speaker not understood], the building, some problems and the tenant report to their building inspection department and that building inspection force the landlord to do something. at the same time the tenant blackmail the landlord to give them the money, up to $15,000 to move or let them to fix something. it is difficulty for the

landlord in san francisco. so that the building department, they don't know, and [speaker not understood] don't know. and [speaker not understood]. whatv? the landlord, it's very difficult. whenever the tenant complain to the building department, they go to the building and they have to do something. and at the same time the tenant blackmail the landlord, ask for $15,000 to leave to fix something or doing something else, or go to see a lawyer. it's very difficult it for the landlord. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. shannon levinson, california mortgage advisors, co-chair of the finance subcommittee for esip with patrick otellini. i want to voice my support for this ernest and i've been working with patrick and [speaker not understood] for actually a number of years on this. i'm a [speaker not understood] aside, bringing members to thev table, figuring out if there were going to be iss