about reauthorizing existing grantees. >> okay. and then we already talked about the 30 day. again, there is no amount oweed. the business would verify then. there is a section in proposition j that talks about legal relationships, so it says landlords must not be related byopeership directly or indirectly to the legacy business. if there are relationships under the broad definition the landlord isn't eligible to apply. but, not having expertise in this area, i think manu suggested that we dpet a little more clarity around what does related by ownership mean directly and indirectly

and so i think we'll continue to work on that, but i thought it plight be good to get direction and expertise from you commissioner tour-sarkissian in terms what to look and how to define this when the grant applications come in we can look at that and assess whether there is a legal relationship or not. >> we should look at other laws in the city and see how that is interpreted. but in my opinion is that any ownership interest in a property should be grant for disqualification. that is, if a you are a tenant and have 10 percent, 5 percent-any interest other than possessry intrest, ownership interest than that means that

you have a stake and you ought not be able to benefit from the program. the second isue is, if a family member-say your father or mother or close family member is a owner of the property and you are the tenant, that also should be looked at and define what means family relationship to what extent and- >> right. i think the point that regina was making is that it may be a policy decision for the commission to decide what constituted related. a father renting commercial space to a child may be a easier case to say they related and konet qualify. what if i

rent space to my 4th cousins brotheren in law does that qualify as a relationship? >> is there precedent in any other regulations that determine what is a family relationship? >> that is something i haven't looked at for today. >> we know that shell corporations and there are all kinds of financial constructs which help hide relationships of owners and so i don't know-we are not experts in that. if we are presented with corporation xyz owns the buildings and we can't get to the owners of the corporation are, then we have no way knowing the corporation is owned fwie the tenant parents or grand parent or

distant relationship or them sevl. >> can it be complicated and have a llc or structure owning and may have severals who may be corporation jz the tenant may be a their e share holder. i'm sure manu will find a definition. >> i think maybe one the questions i have you, do we want to go stricter or broader in terms of looking or just have manu continue to research and come back before you with a set of recommendations? >> the most simple thing is the property could be owned by a divorcee of the-you can be separated by divorce and therefore no long arfamily member and own the build{lease to a prior family member. does that disqualify.

>> you suggesting- >> rime say thrg are probably lots of property in the city where the property went to the non family party but the famy is still leasing; >> i think we should differ this. >> we pointed out there are complication around the definition of related partose so if there are precedence we can fall back on that is great so we don't krto go to the process of redefining it. >> i'll continue to work with staff on that. >> cool. >> and then the lease terms, so the lease terms to be able to bebe awarded a grant is sign a lease for up to 10 years and so we are proposing that situation like a 5 year where the tenant has the option to renew for 5 years meets that requirement or any

other kind of combination there of. but it has to be the tenant option to renew. that you support. and the total square footage so this is wrewoo woo are proposing a unique policy suggestion for you to provide us feedback on. so, the initial-i think the simplest concept around being the grant be awarded is 100 percent rent credit offset, so we want to propose an idea that to help incentvise pro property owners to renegotiate at a lower percentage, the lower the percentage they renegotiate the rent increase, they get to actually keep more of the rent subsidies for

themselves and there is less going for the rent cred it offset. for example, if a landlord does a 10 year lease and there is no rent increase that it is 100 percent. if it is between 0 and 4, the same thing. if it is between 5 and 9 percent, then 12.5 percent of what the subsidy goes for is for the rent credit and 87.5 is for thp landlord to keep. the higher the rent increase is, the more that it goes for the rent credit. so, that's at concept that we are proposing and manu researched it for us that it doesn't interfere with commercial rent control because these are funds

that are being received from us. >> so, i'm not completely following this. so, this is limiting the amount of money that the landlord is eligibility for based on the staying within certain boundaries of rent increase? >> they are eligible for the full amount so it would be if they-let's say they raise in the lease renewal or extension they only raise the rent by 5 percent or 9 percent and they would retain 87.5 percent of that 4.50 per square foot, the 12 and a half percent goes to the rent credit

offset for the business. now i think most people are thinking whatever grant amount we giv the property owner it is direct rent credit to the business, right? so it helps offset the rent increase by the amont that we allocate to the business. we are proposing a concept that to help encourage smaller rent increases the property owner retains the subsidy for themselves. the smaller the rent increase stays with the landlord and less to the rent credit. and i don't know if i'm explaining it >> this is discretion amount used for anything so we don't want a

situation where we give 4 and a half and not helping the business stay in the premises. by allocating the fund in this fashion, we are saying if you are below a certain threshold you get to keep and do whatever you want, otherwise if you go above that a portion will be paid towards reducing rent. that's the concept of encouraging indirectly landlord to keep the percentage of increase low so they can keep that discretionary amount with that allocation between decrease or credit towards rent versus any amount any use you may want to have of the fend. is that correct, manu? maybe not. >> your are summarizing the

regulation? i think that is correct. what you said sounds to me similar to what regina said. >> i'm confused. in this discussion my understanding is we are talking about subsidizing rent. the payment of that subsidy go thooz landlord, is that correct? the 4.50 per year per square foot, that check is written to the the landlord, is that correct? not written to the tenant. >> to the lond lord >> we know it goes towards rent. i don't understand what we are talk about here, some money going the tenant. >> if i can interject. the idea is that if landlords get

grants 4.50 there needs to be a requirement in the regulations saying that landlordss if you get that money the purpose is help the business not unecessarily so if you get the money all has to go to lower the tenant rent. but, the idea is that if this is happening in the context of lease negotiation and the landlord agrees to limit amount of increase a very small percentage, then in that situation the proposal is that the rules would relax the requirement that the landlord use all the grant pluny and give to the tenant. in exchange for the landlord only raising the rent by 1 percent, the landlord rather than giving all the grant fund to had tenant could keep the grant fund for himself. that is the proposal. >> i don't understand that at

all. my-this money should be used exclusively for the reduction of rent for the tenant. i don't know why there is contemplation that a landlord uses the money for their own purpose cht that isn't the intent of this legislation. it is to preserve legacy business and offset rent increases and so i don't get why we where kant contemplating. y i apologize if i didn't explain in more detail. part the concept is if we think-what we are seeing and hearing is we get rent increases 35 percent , 45 and 50 percent. there is no guarantee the appropriation will always cover that rent offset, where we are

coming from is the concept is 4 fr the legacy business the best thing to stay in business is get a new lease with a lower percentage. and so this is coming from that concept of while we initially were-we want to have a rent credit but the sustainability of that business for the next 10 years is probably much better if it has a lower rent increase and so to encourage property owners to go into that direction as opposed to saying i'm still doing 40 percent increase and do this offset, which still may be 6 years down the road, we may flot be able to fully fund that rent credit and so then will the legacy business be able to continue -the legacy business may still have a problem paying their

rent at that 40 percent because of full rent credit isn't there. it is just a concept i want to throw out in terms of the idea of the -what do we want to do drive and encourage aroun the lease renewals for the legacy business. >> my question is, so, when a legacy business is negotiating the lease, will these figures therefore be given to the landlord and say if you raise it 40 percent you won't get any of this money? how does this work-is this for their negotiation >> this is allocation issue and not amount. there will be always 4.50 per scare foot, it is how it is allocated. >> to answer your question commissioner dooley, if a

concept is adopted in the rules and regs and this will be in the rules and regs and when it is time for lease renewal the legacy business once they are on the registry will be provided with the rules and regs in terms when you go fl to lease negotiation understand this for yourself with the property owners so it is something that is gone known ahead of time and somewhat-we would need to see something that would address this in the lease i would think. much of what is reflected in here and even if we were not proposing this concept but it was suppose today be whatever amound mount we fund goys to 100 percent rent credit that has to be in the lease. so, for the property owner, for the landlord to get approved in the grant that has to be-that is a clause in the lease that they center to

show up to be approved. does that make sense? >> it is a negotiation tool. >> well, this brings up-this is just another level of complication that any lease has built in escalation of the lease rate. most leases do. it is very simple calculus on the part of the landlord to optimize their lease negotiation around maximizing benefit. it is possible this benefit at 4.50 per year is way below what they can get at market and say forget it, i don't cairb about that, i will go to market right now and then we get fl to conversation, really you should be nice, you should respect the legacy nature of the business so have a

copversation, the landlord says here this is about as nice as i'll be. any landlord has the discretion to make less money than they can, right? but, most people in business are have a motivation to optimize their value. they are investors in reala state. you can gain this system here and just you might go, i was going to raise my rent a dollar, but i see now i can get 4.50 through the legacy thing and go to bat and say i was going to raise 5 bucks but i'll go into partnership with my legacy business and go to bat for 4.50 from the commission. i think we are in a period of time where this money actually is way below what adjustments to market are and think that our challenge will be whether we can use

this fupd fund to prevent people from bes displaced because it is a amount substantial enough. we'll find that out going forward. i can't contemplate us giving money that isn't going drethly to the rent for a tenant to keep them in their spot. so, i-this table here is a surprise to me that it contemplates a scenario where we have a landlord who is so nice that we are going to-or there is a scenario where we might tell-i don't know-i can't-i dopet know what this is accomplishing. >> just educate and read what the proposition j says as to grant. it says amount of grants following the landlord application and on

anniversary shall qual nigh grant equal to 4.5 per quer square foot up to max omof mive thousand square feet. me reading of that -talks about the grant and doesn't talk about rent reduction or anything. it is grant. so, the way i understand it is that staff and our-manue come up with the table to further give incentive within the budget to encourage the landlord to enter into an agreement by lowering the and getting the entire discretionary amount of the grant versing a percent used to reduction of rent by keeping the yearly increase below a certain threshold. the

grant itself initially at the outset does not allocate the amount toward reduction of rent. so in our discussion using that conceptual-that is how i understand it, if i'm correct, manue, is that creth? >> i think that is correct. just to be clear, our office isn't taking a policy view on this, i'm just explaining what the options before the commission. >> this is where this is part of that and rules and regs of the commission and where the commission has some room to sort of provide some more clarity in a particular direction and so as staff we are thinking about things and so this is just-we brought

this to see what your initial take on this, is this a policy direction to work on or not or do you want to say, well, our initant is that it is a rent credit and 100 percent rent credit and that is reflected in the lease. >> just to be clear giving a grant we have to know what the terms of the lease are because the grant are allbus sustainability so we can't in good conscious give a grant to a landlord who says, well, i'm going to keep the rent, the rent will be x this year, x plus 2 percent next year and x plus 50 percent the year after that because basically it says you are sustainable two more years i then out. you delay the inevable on our dime. he says i'll take 4.50 until i don't want it and then you are

out. it has to be and contemplated the notion orpha 10 year lease or 5 plus 5 or 3 plus 7, the notion that the horizon is 10 years,. really what you in the best case hope to see is someone come and say itle you what, if i get the 4.50 for the next 10 years you rent will be flat for the next 10 years. but we will have to look at every lease agreement and see what the escalation of the rent is to determine if the 4.50 is really a sustainable-is making a contribution to the the legacy business. sustaininable to the future and what i mean by unforseeable future. it has to be the forseeable 10 years because that is the-the we said that is

the time horizon we want. this-again, we are presenting another kind of a, before we pass the law that anyone think about the fact that rents go up and they gope up sometimes a little and sometime said a lot and what prevents it from have agstep function in a forseeable fuch were less than 10 years in a negotiation that we might blast for a grant. >> my concern on this particular portion was something else. is there any implied liability like we give business advise by saying based on what we saw from the lease i think the lease is good and then we be held accountable like my business because you said the lease was good because of this grant? >> we have commissioners insurance?

>> you have legal representation. >> i think we should leave-business owner and landlord to deal with the lease. what we are looking at is a 10 year lease, so if the person-like you say, first 2 percent and sec year 50 percent they won't sign it. >> no, in that case, however it is very common for the year in which the negotiation is suppose today happen whether it is year 3, 5 or 7 for there to be a big jump because that is the evonet that braings the 10tenant to the table. i go from like this and go like this and when it is about it go like that the lapd lord says remind you it is time to renegotiate

your lease. >> i think we should leave it up to the business own squr landlord. 4.50 maximum 5 thousand square foot is 22.500. >> 25 cents a month. >> it isn't a lot of money. >> no >> take 4 percent and 9 percent and 12.5 percent and talking about $2812 for the whole year. take away 50 percent it $50 percent it is $11.250. i don't think we should make it complicate squd keep it simple. >> thank you. >> we are breaking piggy banks open. >> my question wasn't answered are we libel because we get into here is blessing leases because that sound good. >> we shouldn't get fl to it.

>> exactly. i never want to be libel for anything but is it implied because i can see potential lawsuit saying you said this lease was good based othen grant program. >> we are not in the position and nor are we ever saying that a lease is good. what we are saying--what we are saying is there are certain conditions that have to be in the lease for us to be able to approve the landlord to get the grant. so, anything in the lease about any-we haven't gotten to the other parts of other clauses that have to be in the lease as well, so we are not -even let's say you are comfortable with this direction, the fact that if at any point in time we cannot meet our full 4.50 obligation, there is a section in prop

j that says the property owner can cancel the lease. >> okay. >> so, i think if i say that correctly. so, i guess the thing is, we were just-i was thinking in terms of what is one the best things for a business is smaller lease reductions but if this is not a direction and want to have it be that--as commissioner tour-sarkissian said, we'll still need to drarft in the rules and regs it is requirement it goes for rent credit because now it doesn't specifically say that. >> a couple things, it is just not realistic because like you said, everything increasing 3 to 5 percent every year. nou nobody is

flat and-again, it is god time to advertise, it is not going save your business. 25 cent a quer sfoot won't have-just- >> you are starting to sound like me. come on now. don't get cynical. i think this is overlee precryptive, the deeper we get into thaes things the longer it takes to make progress. i can't wait to stee the first one of these come across the plate because i don't know what it will look like and rather than spend a lot of time trying to over prescribe what will happen, let rr see what shows up. we have a responsibility to create a reasonable construct but i don't want to over construct it. >> i was going to respond to commissioner ortiz-cartagena but liability of the commissioners.

we don't advice tenant and landlords how to enter intoa grument jz callify and give any opinion. it will be more are you qualified or not under the rules and regs. that's it. >> so, then manu -are we going need to per this discussion and per the expectation of the commission that it is going for hundred-let me know if i'm wrong in what i'm hearing, it is going for 100 percent rent credit and need to specifically state that in the rule and regs? >> it is good oo specify that. >> we need to see that in the lease? >> it is good to specify that. >> i think the landlord is going to make their-only the landlord can determine whether they

think this money is sufficient for them to craft a lease that is acceptable to the tenant. and so i think it is entirely up to the tenant and landlered to come to agreement on a lease, the landlord saying if i get this money from the city, then here are the terms i'm will toog present and the tenant says if that is the terms you are presenting based on something you get from the city i don't have to know what you get from the city. i just have to know the lease i'm presented is accepted to me and sustainable in my best judgment for the next 10 years. that is all they have to testify to us is the landlord says, grant is good enough for me to present this least and tenant says the lease looks good, i'll take it. weird because we are now-have two

paert parties saying you give me money and i'm good and you are good so you should be good with. beyond determining whether that is trully a sustainable situation fwr the business we have to take it on faith from the business owner who says i'm good with the lease and think i can leave with this for the next 10 years. >> so, then am i hearing we don't care what the-the commission isn't concerned what the landlord does tw the money? y by definition it is rent related because it-the calculation of what that lease looks like is entirely depend on this amount orphmoney. the landlord may say, great, giver me the money. the rent is going up 20 percent a year because that is what the market

demands and the tenant says i can't live with that. for the landlord to say i will take 4.50 and go to hawaii it is still money in their pocket. >> the landlered landlord makes the application not the tenant. >> i know. >> give a example, let's say that the landlord gives a 10 year lease and complies with the other rules, but then includes increase of 20 percent in the lease, would that landlord-the tenant is stuck because they want to stay in the premises, would you think the landlord at least the first year is entitled to that 4.50? >> my question to the tenant is this a sustainable lease because i see on the lease in year 4 you will get a 20 percent increase in rent. why are you goting out

of business-why do you go out of business today if you don't get this and not going out of business in 4 years because it goes up 20 percent? if the answer is, i don't know then i think we have to ask whether we grant that. >> we are not having a conversation with there business when we are deal wg the grant. when we deal with the grant obligation. on in commune cailgz with the property owner and landlord and ask them to verify things through the lease. >> we cannot give a grant without knowing what the term of the lease are. >> correct, >> if the regs provide you have to look at had lease and have to approve every term of the lease, then you get into a very complicated set of regs. today, if the landlord-if it is legacy business and 10 year lease or 5 and 5 or combination, then you

will give-it is 5 thousand square feet, extend that amount and if you tell me that regardless of what the lease amount is going be, then we not going complicate things and just go into it. versus, making it more interesting to the lapd landlord to have discretion and amount towards the rent. that is the issue we are discussing. >> i think we have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayeroffs saf to at least have the business testify that this is a good lease for them. i don't think we can grant one dollar to any land lord without hear thg tenant say this is acceptable. we can't have the landlord come in and say i want the grant and worked with out with the 10 tenant. >> one requirements is we-we may not need to see everything

that is in the lease but we have to make sure that the lease is signed before the grant-that is signed before the- >> acceptance of the lease. i think we need to go a step beyaupd that. the all are lots of things in the lease but the primary thing we are concerned about is how much money the tenant spend on rent so we should see the rent clause in a lease and we should have the landlord say that is the rent jauz the tenant say that is the rent clause i'm signing up for and we should give it a-be able to look and say, the graph on your rent looks like this, but all of a sudden it goes like this. >> the rent includes if i may suggest, a lot of other component so it can be the improvement of

the premises and add up and sometimes it doubles, so it isn't necessarily the amount reflected, it can be a lot of other things. that can be defined as rent. >> the prosecuting attorney would say i have no further questions. there you have it. this is extraordinarily complicated and it isn't as simple as someone saying i'll give you a break, all good, i want you to stay in business and i'm a nice lapd lord so this is enough money. this is going to get--we are never going know if the lease is sustainable and tenant will sur vive. we don't know that anyway, we are only here to make presumably our best judgment as small business experts that this business that is in

distress has a tublt to sur vive if we give it financial assistance in the way we can give in this to rent assistance and general business assistance. and we can only do our best but wroo we have a fiduciary obligation to make the best judgment and don't want to make that judgment without at least scratching the surface what we are approving. i don't want to dig into every lease either anymore than my own lease but i do think that there are some high level considerations and-to your point rbs , i don't in the end how we make that determine ation. >> the proposition j talks about a 10 year lease, correct? what

are the conditions or requirements under prop j? >> for? >> for this grants to be approved? one is 10 years or combination either 10 year term or 5 and 5 or whatever. >> it does require a 10 year lease. it does require-there are other requirements. one of the requirements is that the lease meets all other criteria required by the commission. >> we could add criteria today as our president says in addition to the 10 year lease? >> sure. >> i mean, i guess i don't know what more we need to know. i know what i do know is that we are being asked to distribute ute

fund based on fortune telling and say we think this is a sustainable situation, which nobody knows that. if we did we would make a hell of a lot more money on wall street. i have always said that i think this is a very difficult fund to administer. but, i guess i'm to the point where i want to get as quickly to the administration part to at least see what comes across the platement we may not grant anything because nothing meets the criteria that we feel mates our fiduciary operation and may see all kind of grant request that we thipg are fantastic. i don't know the answer to that yet. i do know that based on my own experience as a brz owner that the amount orphmoney that

are talked about throughout the legislation are not the kind of amounts of money that save businesses on the brink of disaster. i am sort of like waiting to see what we see because i guess i support the intent, but i don't think that in practice this-we are spending a huge amount of time trying to sort this out, time we can spend on other things and i think that this is a piece of legislation that is very-well meaning incredibly difficult to administer without just givlging away a bunch of money and not knowing. >> keep it simple and stupid. >> keep it soup uper simptal. >> you hear that all the time. >> keep it soup were simple.

>> as i read this, even on regular leases, this is mind blowing. i know your worked hard but like number e, number 1, had t has to go mpt >> that feels overly prescriptive. >> transamerica lease is only like 6 pages long. >> there are a couple or policy questions so one is, what happens if a landlord gets a subsidy for a couple years and doesn't apply and after a break reapplies again? so are they considered a existing landlord in terms of the pool oaf consideration like what the existing landlord or would

they be subject to the funding as a new- >> i would bow fine with having a continuity claus that if you miss a year you fall out. you have to be year over year in the program. once you are out of the program , you come back as a new applicant. >> so a new applicant a new lease. >> any legal- >> i think that is fair. it doesn't help the necessarily the legacy business but i think it is a good rule to say you center have to stay in the program and you fall out- >> it should be a incentive to state stay in the program. the tenant will get notified in advance that their landlord is about to fall out of the program and

so hope fully that insfires conversation. >> do they receive notice avenue every year? we sent out notice every year? >> right. but there could be a situation-there will be different things that come up so whether now or later on, before you but there could be a reason the property owner doesn't reaplay so there is a clause if they don't reapply the funds allocated to them go to the the next pool of new property owners or qualified grant recipient. they could decide not to do it for a couple years and then want to come back again.

>> i think we should require that they are continuous. >> and then just to be clear that there is contingency clauses in prop >> that is >> that lease extension besteen a landlord and legacy business not disproved due to provision s in the lease make thg lease contiskant upon the landlord receiving a grant from the city. however if a lease contains a provision the provision must also state that the lease contingency-

>> initially this clause provided in the law that it cannot disqualify a lease because it contains this provision. it says if the landlord can get out of the e lease because they didn't get 4.50 per square foot the landlord should be off the hook. that provision will not disqualify the lease, correct? >> that's what the provision says. >>thality is the in law. we were thinking about maybe i was thinking about not allowing the landlord to intentionally get out of the lease or negligently by so doing terminate the lease. that is a exception to that clause in the lease. that's the

question. it is question of fact intentionally or negligently you do not-intentionally you dont pay taxes therefore you dont qualify and you trip the lease or you negligently forget to it it. the policy behind the exception is the purpose to preserve to & protect the legacy business and there should not be a indirect way of falling out of the lease in that fashion. is that a proper explanation. >> you are explain thg proposal. >> that proposal is complaint with prop j. >> yes, i think so. the intent

is help tenant, not allow landlords to insert contiskancies that weaken leases, >> does this say the landlord can not write into the lease if they do not receive the assistance grant that they cannot terminate the lease? >> the provision says if you vaclaus in the lease that says, that you can terminate the lease if you don't get the money, that should not be a grant for disqualification. >> that should not be ground for us disclaul qualify. are we on to the next? >> the last thing so this seems

like you are okay with that. the last thing is there are reasons to deny the grant if the property owner isn't compliant with the obligation but also if we should at any time find they fallify any information that is in the grant application let's say relationships and that type of thing, that would be a reason for disqualification and want to put it out there to see if we should state that the property owner is required to then refund the amount of grant they were oweed. ? you should change the word ask to required which is may be required to return the grant funds. if this is done fraujiantly then yes, of coursefelt if they dopet they will get sued by the city. >> the question i believe is,

ret row active from day one. the first date of misrepresentation and fraud the city can require reimbursement of the grant. >> i think existing law allows for that. that is going after people guilty of prod. >> from day one, correct? >> that is the question. you can pro pouse from day one. >> fwraum the time you break the law you are libel to reemburse the city for fund they gave under false pretense. i don't think it should be asked. i think may be require today return the grant fund. >> maybe be. may be meaning only if the city attorney is successful prosecuting. you will be required to the extent-required is may be

required if you are bank rupt we may choose not to prosecute. will be required. they still may not- >> we'll get our city attorney-- >> i think absolutely if they falsify their application and get a grant they shouldn't have gotten we will go after thaem from the the first dollar distributed. i think that is the spirit. >> that conclude the first round of input from the commission for us to continue. >> i have a comment. i contemplate the chart you organized in section e because it stand we still need clarification what

is outlined in prop j as rent credit and this remind me of incentive and affordable housing bonus program so curious if this is something to bring back to the supervisor jz see if this helps clarify that piece in prop >> about how to distribute the rent credit. i'm will ing to look at it little further. >> we have received the input from the commissioners and we'll continue to move forward. i think that that-unless you-we need to do public comment but unless you have final questions for manu why while you have a chance mptd >> any further questions? any

members of the public that would like to comment? seeing none public comment is closed. manusfz you are free to spend the day how you like. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you for indigdering our questions. >> item 7, approval of meeting minutes. you have consideration september 12, 2016 and february 19, 20 sphene. 15. >> motion. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. that motion is approved 7-0. opposed? i didn't ask. we do need public comment. y any members of the public that would like to comment on the item before we revote? >> seeing none public comment is closed. can we have the

vote again? can i center v the motion, please? >> i move. >> i second. >> all in favor? opposed? motion pass said 7-0. item 8, directors report. update on report on the office of small business >> i think the updates can update light. >> i am going to-i will provide a more detailed report next mondays meeting. nothing urgent to report. >> any members that would like to comment on that report? >> seeing none, public comment closed. >> item 9, commissioners report. allows president, vice president and commissioners to report on small business activities.

>> i center have one items i attended the first meeting for small business planning for nerks nerks next year. >> i want to highlight sfmta and working with [inaudible] small business in the mission on a program to promote [inaudible] to shop in the mission regionally. i do want to highlight thought because there are par ll ishis this is a time they are doing something amazing and should recognize when thirngs work. >> fantastic. >> shop mission. >> any other commissioner reports? do we have members of the public that like to comment on the commissioners reports? seeing none- >> i said comment and was sulnt. >> seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> item 10, new business allows commissionerss to noort deuce new ajepda items for future consideration by the commission. >> commissioner adams, and this is something we brought up in the past and this is something after we get out of the heg legacy business done and going i like to talk about landlords who purposefully vacate buildings and want to bring up what is happening in the castro. we closed the patio down. he has a new business going in called ham burgy mary's approved a year ago and was suppose today be open and kept it vacant. he is now not negotiating in good faith with j jorge perez and giving 30 day tooz get out of the spot. you have a successful business

there for 20 year jz a lapd lord that will tell him to leave successful business, he is will toog pay the rent and you have a landlord who wants him out who will leave the space vacant as he has done all the other commercial space on 18th street and castro. i know that there are state laws, but there has got to be something on the local level we can do and kathleen you brought this up, there has got to be something on the local level to do something with these landlords who want to keep spaces vacant because they get a tax break on the property loss. i'm starting to figure this out more and more as i research it. >> this then is looking into the issue of pusistent vacancies? >> yes. thank you.

>> okay. >> that's all. >> any other new business items? commissioner zouzounis did you have something? anybody else? okay, no more new business. any members of the public that like to comment on the new business? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item. >> i would regarding that issue. there is legislation on the vacant space ordinance where they get penalties but don't believe it is from my experience my previous job-richard [inaudible] it doesn't seem to be working very well so maybe you can look into that a little more. >> great. we will put that on our new business agenda for staff to see if they can't come up with a presentation for us. okay. any other member that would like to comment on item

number 10? seeing none public comment is closed. next item. >> item 11, adjournment. >> so move. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? >> gavel down. >> the meeting is adjourned at 252 p.m. >> 443, sorry. thank you. [meeting adjourned] you will ple

in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag to the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> we want to welcome everyone who joined he this evening in person want for anyone that wishes to address the board of education i will request that you fill out one of speaker cards that looks like this in the hallway and once you fill them out be sure to note item you want to speak on and give them to our