Time to Raze all these buildings. To old, rent control, no longer makes sense to keep them.

Council needs to address the zoning of these properties. The properties on the list should automatically be zoned the highest number of units allowed. Each of these properties should not have to go thru one by one asking approval first to rezone them to the highest density allowed.

This should be done at the same time and in the same approval process as mandating any retrofit work.

I agree that if they cannot be retrofitted to be earthquake-proof, then they should be razed. Where I disagree is that they should be then zoned for owner-occupied, single-family housing --- row houses or townhouses ideally. MV needs more owner-occupied housing because it would bring a more stable and politically responsible pool of new residents.

It is not a question of "if they can not be retrofitted", if you have enough money you can do anything.

But at this point, with the age and other items that need replacements as well, it is no longer financially feasible to keep these properties around if the city mandates this retrofit work.

Can anyone clarify "Target type", specifically, what is the difference between "long side open" and "one side open"?

Is there a link to the original Mr Bonowitz's report?

This could help solve the rent control problem - tear down rather than retrofit. Of course this will displace a lot of families. But think of all the increased property tax revenue from newly constructed townhomes!

I am being a bit snarky, but the reality that this could happen strikes true.

Make them do very expensive retrofits, or raze and rebuild...this time 4 or 5 stories tall. California Avenue will look a lot different in 5-10 years!

Don't allow anything to be rebuilt but similarly priced rental units, preferably more than there are currently. Offer displaced tenants first right to return to the new units, at current rents. And be happy that no tragedy and ensuing lawsuits were required.

This report is not an "opportunity" to displace residents and maximize profits. If it becomes one, residents may prefer (and vote) to disallow this kind of safety report. And that isn't good for anyone.

Had you been to last nights council meeting, you would have found that council raised the fee's so much on developers who want to build housing units in the North Bay Shore that developers said they can not go forward with their plans.

Lenny Siegel of all people said the city needs to find ways to reduce fees to the developers so that they will go forward in building housing units.

When you say "Don't allow anything to be rebuilt but similarly priced rental units," that is impossible.

Many of those properties on the list will be too cost prohibitive and will be sold and razed. If you oppose this then ask city to find ways to pay for the work, and or do not make it mandatory.

Building may collapse in a large quake! These are home built from 1950 and 1980 time period. Did we have a large quake since then? Did these building have large damage? Was the risk of large quake increased since 1980? Sounds like a great sales pitch to do a survey and make more expensive housing.