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 issues finding financing for the owners to perform this work. and we're working diligently to make sure there are options on the private finance sector for the owners that do wish to move forward or are forced to move forward with these retro fits ~ and we don't see that being an issue that is insurmountable. we have 15, 20 lenders that come to the table and ready to work with the owners to help get this done. so, thank you.

>> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item number 5? soft story seismic retrofit? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, any additional comments? and we do have an amendment on the table. >> actually, i did have one question of mr. otellini. mr. huey from dbi had raised the issues in his letter that he just described. can you just address them and why you don't think they need to be addressed at this point? >> sure. i think there was a little bit of confusion as to the subject buildings under this ordinance. previously, without getting into the myrrh can i details of it, there was a confusion about how you define a story previously in the san francisco building code. ~ this was more than eliminated 10 years ago to find clarity what the impact of the story is. the legislation is to protect people that are in two levels of living over a soft story. so, in most cases that means a three story building. some hillside conditions, you

have situation where building may appear as a three story building from the front, but by the building code definition is not a technically a three story building. so, we feel this encompasses just a few hundred additional buildings, but that posed the same risk, but actually has much cheaper construction costs to achieve the same safety level that the three story buildings would be. >> and you feel confident we can address that situation, the two stories over the basement scenario that mr. huey laid out in his memo? >> absolutely. >> okay, thanks. >> thank you. so, supervisor kim has proposed an amendment. is there a second to that amendment? >> second. >> okay. and can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> and do we have a motion to

forward item number 5 to the full board with positive recommendation? >> i'll make that motion. >> okay. and can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] ~ ~ >> item number 2. >> time number 2 is ordinance amending the subdivision code, by adding section 1396.4, to adopt a condominium conversion impact fee applicable to buildings participating but not being selected in the 2012 or 2013 condominium conversion lotteries only, subject to specified requirements, including lifetime leases for non-purchasing tenants; and adopting environmental findings. >> okay, i'll give a moment for some folk to clear out of the hearing room. if people who are not here for item number 2 who are not speaking can maybe go out in the hallway. >> okay. item number 2 has been called relating to the condo conversion lottery and impact fee. as i've indicated before ~ supervisor farrell who is the

lead author of this legislation has requested that the committee continue item number 2 until april 15th. so, for three weeks. we will have a full hearing and public comment at that time on april 15th. with that said, anyone who is here who would like to make public comment on the merits of item number 2 or on the motion to continue, you are absolutely entitled to do so. but if you choose not to make public comment today, you will have a full opportunity on april 15th. so, colleagues, if there are no introductory comments. we will open it up to public comment on item number 2. i have five public comment cards. marion wallace, jose morales who i believe already spoke on this subject. hex [speaker not understood], josephine [speaker not understood], marlene train. and there are blue cards right through. go ahead, ma'am.

~ tran good afternoon, thank you for hearing me. i just wanted to make the comment that the people who brought tics actually did so with knowledge of the restrictions and difficulties and financial risks. and now i don't see why they should be given a pass at the detriment to the renters who are actually the ones who need protection. and i wonder how many people who actually support the amendment, aloe srithctiontioned people by their tic or are doing for other financial gain. it seems like there is some financial gain at stake for them to show up. it seems like anyone who did purchase a tic and is now having financial difficulties could certainly sell their tic and become a renter. they have the resources. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

ms. tran. good afternoon, i'm marlene tran, spokesperson for the visitacion valley asia linetionv. i am also retired teacher for public schools for over 30 years, having focused mainly on the nonlimited english speakers and many of them are here today. and with your permission, because they're a little bit shy about coming to the podium, if i may ask them to raise their hands so we can identify the group. may i do that? >> yes. okay. [ speaking in native language] okay, let me ask first question. if you're a tenant, renter, please raise your hand. so, today as you can see, we are not trying to displace anybody. we are representing many of the

people from the low-income, many of them seniors and most of them attendants. we have tic. as we all know, tic concerns a lot of people who are property owners. they are not renters. so, i don't think the legislation in any way displace anybody, particularly in my case because i work with this group for almost 40 years. so, i'm asking that we allow the condo bypass to happen and change the current law [speaker not understood] because ultimately it will be a win/win situation for all. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. and i have one more card, ethan davidson. go ahead. hi, my name is josephine [speaker not understood]. i would like to ask supervisors to approve this legislation to the full board and allow the condo bypass to happen to help the people who are in tic

ownership right now to avoid foreclosure fate and to help them to continue to stay in the city to be middle class. and don't change the current lottery system. any significant change to the current lottery system will be unfair to the tic owner who bought their unit buildings with the reasonable assumption that it would be able to convert to condominiums in a reasonable amount of time. in a 200-year condo cap is not too many. [speaker not understood] about 50, 60 units of buildings -- 50 or 0 buildings. ~ 60 that is very little. and also this bill is good for everyone involved, even including the renters who have their own mind knowing what this bill is about to protect the seniors and the families with lifetime [speaker not understood]. i wish you would continue