Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  January 14, 2019 6:00pm-7:01pm PST

6:00 pm
kennedy, and i've been the owner and chief optometrist of for your eyes only optometry for many years. i'm here to request your support for inclusion in san francisco's legacy business registry. for your eyes only optometry has been the fabric of the historic fabulous castro district for 35 years ago, and we passionately support the vision of the castro. our neighborhood is a welcoming place that stands strong and united in the face of bigotry or an epidemic. for your eyes only is proud to be an integral part of this unique community. during the early years of the aids crisis, our optometry office was one of the few optometry offices in the world where patients could go and be open about their diagnosis and their fears of going blind from
6:01 pm
this terrible disease. these patients knew that we would treat them with compassion and respect. we continue this tradition today. we treat all people with dignity and kindness no matter what they are or whom they love. a few examples of other ways that for your eyes only optometry serves our community including sponsoring a day bowling team in the 1980's. our membership in the castro lions club, which was the first guy lions club in the world. we at for your eyes only optometry love the castro. i feel privileged to provide eye care to our wonderful patients in this dynamic village within the city. we are concerned about our practice's future. our building's owner passed away recently, and our new landlord, his plans are unclear. our lease expires in 2020.
6:02 pm
becoming a legacy business would offer for your eyes only optometry some protection so that we can continue to serve and be a vital part of our beloved city for many years to come. thank you. >> president adams: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, thank you. my name is steve vishi, and i'm the executive director of kimochi. it's kind of hard to follow our cofounder who spoke to you earlier about our mission and philosophy. but in terms of a personal note, i've been with the agency since high school, and the beliefs of what it was instilled in kimochi in terms
6:03 pm
of a vast array of services and programs for seniors to keep them independents and living at home as long as possible shows in the variety of programs we serve. we applies for the legacy also in honor of the volunteers and staff who had foresight to create a kimochi with the vision and philosophy of such, where they've went and has small private offices in redevelopment victim torians and worked by the task lights all through the night. that's something we were very proud of. it's something that i admired, and i hoped that they would be considered and approved to be a legacy business. thank you. >> president adams: thank you. any other speakers? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, would anybody like to say anything?
6:04 pm
commissioner dooley? >> commissioner dooley: yeah, i want to say that today, like many other days, we have an amazing group of people here. you just represent what is really the best of san francisco, and i agree that it's extremely important to support you and to make sure that our city is available for not everyone who is just here for a few years. so thank you so much for all your hard work, and well deserved. >> president adams: commissioner ortiz? >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: yes, i just want to extend the sentiment of my cocommissioners. you guys are san francisco. alioto's, optometry, the bayview yacht club, when i'm looking for parking, passing right by you to go to the ballpark. you are san francisco, and you make the city great, and we
6:05 pm
will fight for you. those who have issues with the lease, come see us, because if it's not even our office, we do work with other nonprofits, such as meta, where we buy buildings to make sure we keep neighborhoods what they were and what they are and what they're going to be. to keep san franciscans, future, let them know our history and what makes our city so great, so thank you for your hard work and going through this process. dam dam commissioner -- >> president adams: commissioner zouzounis? >> commissioner zouzounis: thank you for all your hard work. by applying, you're putting small business on the map, so thank you for fighting and thank you for being here. >> president adams: thank you. commissioner dwight? >> vice president dwight: well, i want to say i'm
6:06 pm
delighted to see couture european clothing on the list today. i met david when i first came to san francisco 13, 14 years ago -- actually no, almost 20 years ago, and i actually was the one who mentioned to him that he should join the legacy business registry when i learned how long he had been in business, so it's great to see him having gone through the process and thanks to rick for giving him so much help getting through the process. but any way, in his absence, i do want to, for the record, that i am tonight wearing a suit from him, so -- thank you. >> president adams: thank you. commissioner yee riley? >> commissioner riley: i also wanted to thank everybody for coming tonight, and i enjoyed reading the rich history of all of your businesses, so thank you. >> president adams: okay. any other commissioner comments? okay. i'd like to say each and every
6:07 pm
one of you, great job. and i'd like to give a special shout out to kathleen kennedy, for your eyes only. i worked with her in the castro, the castro merchants. she is there for everything. she is your neighborhood business. she takes care of those kids at harvey milk silver rights academy whoots kids can't afford to have eye care. what she does for the lgbt community, her volunteering, i just want to say thank you for everything that you've done for the neighborhood. and you're not going away, so don't worry. and everybody else, st. mary's pub, i actually was in there about a year ago. that's a fun pub, so congratulations, everybody. alioto's, you got the best crab cakes around. that was even before i moved to san francisco 25 years ago, i
6:08 pm
was on a trip here 30 years ago. the very first restaurant i went into was alioto's. and each one of you came out here, and you know, you took the time, you filled out the applications, you did everything to help your business, and i just want to repeat what commissioner zouzounis said. you're also helping other small businesses by doing this. and you just make san francisco a better place to live. so do we have a motion? >> move to approve all seven resolutions. >> second. >> second. >> clerk: a motion by commissioner dwight, seconded by commissioner -- >> president adams: yee riley. >> clerk: commissioner yee riley. okay. >> president adams: yee riley made the second.
6:09 pm
it was simultaneous. >> clerk: was that a voice vote or roll call? >> president adams: roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: motion passes, 7-0. >> president adams: great. congratulations. [applause] >> president adams: okay. next item. >> clerk: item 4, approval of legacy business registry application and resolution. >> president adams: commissioner zouzounis? >> commissioner zouzounis: i would like to make a motion to recuse myself. it w it is my family's business. >> president adams: okay. do we have a motion? >> so moved.
6:10 pm
>> second. >> president adams: okay. all in favor? [voting] >> president adams: okay. you're recused, but you don't have to leave the room. >> clerk: the presenter is richard kurylo, legacy manager, office of small business. >> r. kurylo: good evening, small business commissioners, office of small business staff. richard kurylo, small business legacy manager. sfgovtv, i have a presentation. before you is one additional application for the legacy business registry. the application had the same timeline as the other seven applications being submitted to planning department staff on november 21 and being heard by the historic preservation commission on december 19. item 4 is ted's market.
6:11 pm
the business, located in the soma neighborhood, was founded in 1967 by husband and wife team theodore and penelope zouzounis. ted and penny were both born in san francisco, both from greek immigrants. today's market is a full deli, and market including a wide selection of beer, wine and liquor. the store has a wide selection of to-go foods, prepared daily for customers convenience. ted's also has a long time connection to the music industry as a music office was across the street. in 1983, ted and penny's son david became part owner with his parents, running the store together until 1997, when ted passed away. david and his wife, loreen,
6:12 pm
became sole owners of the store. today, 52 years ago after it was established, the store is run in the same location by the second and third-generation, now including ted and penny's granddaughter, miriam. the business received a positive recommendation from the historic preservation commission. after reviewing the application and recommendation from the h.p.c., staff finds the business has met the three criteria to qualify for listing on the legacy business registry. there is a draft resolution for consideration by the s.b.c. note that a motion in support of the business should be a motion in favor of the resolution. the core physical feature tradition that defines the business is grocery store and delicatessen. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. there is a business representative in attendance
6:13 pm
who would like to speak on behalf of the application. >> president adams: okay. any commissioner comments before we go into open public comment? okay. public comment is now open. do we have any members of the public who would like to make any comments? >> i'm david zouzounis. thank you, executive director dick andrizzi, and greetings, commissioners. on december 11, 2017, senator wiener and mayor lee held a press conference in front of ted's market to -- to bring a new way to -- for small business to recycle. on that fateful day, mayor lee reached out to me and said you
6:14 pm
have to apply for a legacy business, so -- so that's what i did, and i'm here, and i appreciate everything that's been -- all the supportive i have gotten. so ted's market is now entering three generations of family ownership in the soma district in the same building. from the summer of love in 1967 to a vibrant filipino community to our first folsom street fair to the dot-com bubble and burst to now tech workers, we've continued to adapt and change. we've always had an approach for fresh food, good prices, great service, and making sure our employees in the community are most important. thank you.
6:15 pm
>> president adams: thank you. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have any commissioner comments? i first want to say, david, you've been there for 30 years, and your involvement in the community is second to none. i read your story a year ago, and it brought me to tears. what you did during the aids crisis, and you know, you talked about, you know, the folsom street fair, you've done a lot for my community, and everybody still talks about it to this day. and i just cannot thank you enough how much i appreciate that. and even today, all my friends that work at the b.m.w. across the street, every fricking morning they take a picture of their breakfast sandwich, and
6:16 pm
they put it on instagram -- no, it's true. you are frisk, and i -- from the bottom of my heart i want to just thank you for everything and your family have done throughout the years. thank you. commissioner dooley? >> commissioner dooley: i want to just say thank you also to you. well deserved, as with everyone in this room today. obviously, you and your family are doing a great job, and we need more people like you. >> president adams: any other commissioner comments? okay. do we have a motion? oh, commissioner ortiz? >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i just need to -- you know, i love the sandwich. i go to all the sandwich shops. i love to go to ted's. i wish you would have brought one. i'm hungry now, and i have to go to ted's. >> president adams: so do we have a motion? >> move to approve this
6:17 pm
resolution. >> second. >> clerk: roll call vote? >> president adams: yes. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. motion passes, 6-0, with one not participating. >> president adams: okay. the motion passes. congratulations, everybody. [applause] >> okay. do we need a motion for commissioner zouzounis to come back? >> president adams: no. miriam, you can come back. >> clerk: presentation on 18123, building, vacant or abandoned storefronts. >> president adams: and you
6:18 pm
don't have to stay here unless you want to hear the rest of the meetings. >> drinks at st. mary's. >> clerk: -- annual registration fees at the time of the registration, require annual inspections of registered, vacant, or abandoned storefronts, update penalties for violations, and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. the presenter is chelsea baylard, aide to supervisor sandra fewer. >> chelsea, why don't we just wait one second.
6:19 pm
>> okay, good evening, everyone, director andrizzi and commissioners. it is a pleasure to be here with you all tonight, and thank you for the opportunity. also really wonderful to hear all the legacy businesses. we're a big fan of the program,
6:20 pm
and it's just very heartwarming to be here for all of that presentation and discussion. so i am here to present on the legislation that supervisor fewer has introduced to amend the building code with regards to vacant or abandoned commercial storefronts. i wanted to share a little bit about the goals, the broad goals of the legislation, and i can walk-through the specific changes, and then happy to answer any questions that might come up. so the main purpose of supervisor fewer's legislation is to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the existing vacant storefront registry. we think that better tracking will help ensure that vacant storefronts are promptly identified, registered and monitored to remain safe as well as to avoid hazards and n n nuisances that result from
6:21 pm
this. we don't pretend that this legislation is going to fix the problem of vacant storefronts. this is just trying to get a handle on the issue of vacant storefronts. when supervisor fewer and supervisor yee called for a hearing -- a joint hearing on this, that was also with the office of economic and workforce development last year, which included kind of a state of retail in san francisco, you know, at that time, the department of building inspection only had about, like, 40 vacancies on the registry, and zero of those were in the richmond district. as a resident in the richmond district, and obviously, supervisor fewer, we knew for a fact that was not accurate, an accurate count. so in order to understand the scope and scale of the problem, it feels like we need to amend the legislation, that we know that there's some loopholes in what was passed, first introduced by supervisor tang in 2014, and then in conversation with her, i think
6:22 pm
she really agreed with the spirit of the changes that we are bringing forth. so specifically, we hope to improve the vacant storefront registry by ensuring all vacant storefronts are registered, regardless if the store is being advertised for sale or lease. we know there are a lot of storefronts in san francisco, the richmond, for example, that have been vacant for ten years, 15 years, and the owner will put up a sign saying it's for lease, and it's a loophole that's in the legislation that allows them not to have to comply with being on the registry if they're saying it's kind of openly on the market. but whether or not they're actually responding to, you know, requests for renting that property out is a different question. so that's one. we want to also increase the resources for the department of building inspection to monitor
6:23 pm
and enforce registration requirements by requiring the annual registration fee at the time of registration. currently, what's on the books is a 270-day grace period, so we -- you know, our asking property owners to register with the vacant storefronts registry, but then, they have the full nine months of not paying the registry fee. in the meantime, d.b.i. inspectors, it's that $711 fee which basically pays for 4.5 hours of an inspector's time. d.b.i. is still going out and doing the work of still confirming this is a vacant storefront, being in communication with the owners, but not actually recovering the fee, so we want to change that and adjust that loophole. thirdly, we want to clarify the process enforcement and penalties for failure to register, and also require annual inspections of vacant storefronts. we know that vacant forefronts
6:24 pm
in a lot of neighborhoods contribute to blight. there might be squatters or graffiti or broken glass or windows, and we want to make sure as property owners are registering on an annual basis, that they are also ensuring that interior and exterior maintenance is being upheld. so would it be helpful for me to walk-through kind of each line item? so i'll start with page three, line one. this legislation -- proposed legislation removed section 103-a.5.1, saying that a commercial storefront shall not be considered vacant if it is being actively advertised for sale, lease, or rent, that saying you're for lease keepts you exempt from ahaving to
6:25 pm
register, and we want to change that. on page 18, we want to require owners register their storefronts and pay up front the $711 registration fee at the time and removing that nine-month grace period. we do -- one change that is noted in the legislation that is different from what is introduced, and this is part of being in conversation with the code advisory committee, that if a -- an owner rents out the storefront to a tenant less than a year after the date it was originally registered vacant, we do want to offer a refund to that owner. and rather than have it be prorated, which we've been informed by d.b.i. presents a little bit of an administrative nightmare, we are changing the language up to half, that owners can be refunded up to half of that registration fee. on page four, line eight, it
6:26 pm
adds a new section, 103-a.5.3 that would require annual inspections of have a can't storefronts. the other -- vacant storefronts. the other change that the department of building inspection would conduct those inspections, and that was actually not what we were hoping would happen, so we are changing that to ensure that it is a licensed professional that is actually doing the annual inspection, ensuring that the interior and exterior maintenance is up to code. and then, finally, page four, line 25, this would require the department of building inspection to issue a notice of violation to the owner of a vacant storefront who hasn't registered and pay the registration fee, even after being warned by a written notice from the department of building inspection that they have a registered storefront, so they can cure the notice of violation by registering their
6:27 pm
storefront, paying thep'll'' thep'll'''' -- the registration fee. and we are working with d.b.i. to ensure that property owners are getting, you know, robust communication regarding this change so that they understand, you know, what is required in terms of compliance. but, you know, i think there arej several different strategies that are being employed with the vacant storefront issue. this is just one that's trying to get a better handle on the problem and make sure we have a registry that is accurate. there are other changes in terms of zoning and making -- easing kind of the permitting process for small businesses that we support, and we actually think that a lot of these strategies will work together to try to get a better handle on this issue. so with that, i will open it up to any comment -- any questions
6:28 pm
or comments. >> president adams: commissioner dooley? >> commissioner dooley: first of all, i want to say, i am so excited about this. it's one step toward, i'm sure everyone here in their neighborhood have so many vacant storefronts from people who have refused to rent them for 10, 20 years. it's just crazy. it blights the neighborhood, it discourages people from renting when there are empty buildings around them, and i say, you know, high time for this. i have a couple questions. in terms of the private inspection, is there going to be any recourse to have d.b.i. reinspect upon request? the reason i ask is there's a lot of cronyism out there, and i could definitely see a situation where someone is
6:29 pm
saying that they passed when they have not. i know in my neighborhood, there are many places that are dangerous and, you know, i just don't want to see them find their uncle who's somehow involved with this, and they give them a pass. i'd like to see some kind of path for the neighborhood to have recourse to have someone from d.b.i. come out as necessary. my last question is how long is it going to be before there y' determined to be noncompliant? >> that is a good question. so with regards to your first question, that is not something that we had talked about explicitly in terms of, you know, an amendment in the legislation, but i do think it's an important thing to flag, particularly, you know, for firms that may have someone on staff to be able to do these inspections, so it's something that we've discussed a little
6:30 pm
bit with d.b.i., and we can explore that further, because i do think it's a good point. can you repeat your second question? >> commissioner dooley: how long -- what's the term before a business is deemed noncompliant and receives a large fine? >> yeah. so what is currently in the legislation is once there has been a storefront that has been reported, and the reporting can either be self-reported, which we are trying to encourage more of, but often, these happen through complaints. they have 30-days to comply with registering their vacancy, and if not, that notice of violation is applicable. >> commissioner dooley: great. thank you. >> president adams: commissioner dwight? >> vice president dwight: i, too, agree with the spirit of this agreement, though i have some questions about some of the details. i think the presence of a for lease or for sale sign should
6:31 pm
not be a bye for people to register under any circumstances, and i think the registration period of 30 days is perfectly reasonable. i do have an issue with requiring the fee to be paid immediately and then going into this sort of administrative burden of having to rebate some or all of it. we all know it takes time to execute a lease. it would seem that a landlord with best intentions, it's going to take them 30, 60, 90 days to lease their space, maybe even nine months in today's market. so it seems to me a generally -- an overgeneralization -- it's a punitive fee. the minute your building is empty, we're going to get you, and i don't think that's rather, and i especially don't think it's right in today's climate. many property owners own a single piece of property, and so they are small business
6:32 pm
owners themselves this owners themselves by living off the proceeds of their real estate. i think as a small business commissioner, one, i'd be interested to know how many landowners -- commercial landowners in san francisco qualify as small owners, single or one or two or whatever the right number of leasable spaces is, but i think it's probably a lot, and i just think it's -- it's -- we shouldn't be in the business of implementing if you know ti know -- punitive fees when they're going out of business. your tenant can go bankrupt today, and you don't see it coming. it's not like the building's been for lease or for sale before this person leaves. it can happen abru abruptly, a
6:33 pm
usually does. i think it would be wise to give the benefit of the doubt to the landowners, not to ding them because their current tenant gave up their business, so that's my point of view. >> president adams: commission commissioner corvi? >> commissioner corvi: i just want to say this. i've only been a commissioner here for six orseven months. this has been exciting for me because i own two businesses, one on union, and one on polk street. i get sick of seeing storefronts empty for the length of time that they've been empty, and i've always wondered why we aren't able to rent these storefronts to help the other businesses around. i'm very excited, and i hope this can work out and we can get some of these storefronts rented and -- and help the
6:34 pm
businesses around our businesses. so yeah, i'm looking forward to it, yeah. >> president adams: thank you. commissioner zouzounis? sedu >> commissioner zouzounis: what comes to mind as a small business and property owner came across the planning commission recently. they had a store on divisadero street, they weren't able to sustain that, but they owned the building, and because of the c.u.s in that area -- or sorry, the restrictions around formula retails in that area, they weren't able to find a lease for a really long time, and you know, then, once they did find a potential tenant, they had to go through this whole c.u. process. and so what would -- what would you say to an example like that, like, where you, again, have a small business owner in this case who's trying -- is there a reporting process in
6:35 pm
which they can kind of show their due diligence in this time or anything like that? >> yeah. thank you for that, and i think both comments -- you know, this is definitely part of the thinking around the refund is that we do want to -- we know that there are some -- i'm trying to think of the word -- kind of serial vacancies whereby there are those owners that are kind of like, they've been vacant for 15, 20 years, and those are the folks that i think is very frustrating. i think we don't want to penalize, though, property owners that are operating their own business. so i think what the legislation does is it does require the fee up front. i think the refund is trying to incentivize that process. i'm not sure if it makes a difference where it's a 30-day period, where they pay the fee,
6:36 pm
or 60 days, where the example that you gave, i'm not sure it makes that much of a difference, and i think we do want to make sure that those property owners are engaging in the vacant storefront registry. part of the thing i didn't talk about because it's not in the lemgs lation, the small business does reporting to the -- legislation, the office of small business does reporting to the office of housing and workforce development. we have a question, like, how many of those property owners are large corporate owners versus the small business category i think is important for us to get a handle on in order to figure out how we approach the problem going forward. but also having folks on the registry that the office of
6:37 pm
housing and workforce development know they can provide matches to potential tenants. i think the 711f$711 fee is re just cost recovery. the department of building inspections, they're really slammed, and so they need more resources to be able to focus more inspectors on this problem, so i guess that's what i would kind of say in response, is that we really -- the approach of this really is not trying to penalize the folks who are just -- who are just running their business or, you know, we're -- we're trying to be -- take into consideration their needs, as well, but this is -- i think it seems pretty up front what we're trying to accomplish, and the registration fee is not meant to be punitive, it is meant to be cost recovery. >> president adams: commissioner dwight?
6:38 pm
>> vice president dwight: so just to be clear, i support registering in 30 days unconditionally, and just registering your building does not get you out of anything else. there should be no inspection required if someone is following the rule of the law. if they register within 30 days, and they rent within nine months, then no one should ever have to go out and look at that. that should be great. you followed the rules. what should happen, when someone reports that business has been vacant -- property has been vacant for 30 days or more, then i would agree the fee should be immediately, and that that should be nonrefundable. you blew it, you pay it, okay, and that there should be fines for that. but our taxes pay for certain basic services in this city, so we can't go around cost recovering everything, and we
6:39 pm
can't be -- and in fact we should be looking to simplify the administration of our laws. so there should be no inspection as long as things -- there should be no need to inspect compliance of any law in this -- in this city as long as people are following the rules, okay? it's when people fall out -- when they go out of the borders, out of the guardrails that they need to be brought back in through inspections or whatever. so i think that the cost recovery notion is -- is kind of a red herring here because there shouldn't be any cost to recover if -- for those who are following the rules, okay? what you're saying here is we're now going to mandate -- we're basically going to say, we're going to go out and inspect everything. we know they probably won't because they're not staffed to do that, and they're not going to get to hire more people. there's not a hiring freeze, but there's a request to dial
6:40 pm
things back in all these departments, so really, we're just collecting money, and i don't like that notion in a city already that collects lots of money from small business owners in myriad different ways, so i would like to see this modified to provide for immediate registration, provide for a fine if you don't do it within 30 days as you're supposed to, but i would leave in the nine-month grace period. whether that's 60 days, 90 days, or nine months to lease a property, we're talking about chronic vacancies, buildings as we've acknowledged, that are vacant, not for a year, but for five years, 15 years, 20 years. not the people that are vacant for even up to a year. you know, it takes time. >> president adams: commissioner dooley? >> commissioner dooley: my question on this issue is we do
6:41 pm
in each neighborhood have money of these scoff-law people who are either not going to register or are going to get someone to say they're compliant when they're not. so i almost feel like you might consider putting out a questionnaire in each neighborhood so that you can be directed towards the derelict businesses and maybe keep a sharper eye on them. because every neighborhood, it would take us five minutes in every neighborhood to have someone report what's been closed for 30 years. >> you know what? invest in an app for that. you'd have every neighborhood self-reporting their vacancies. we all are aware of it in our neighborhoods. i live in san francisco. i'm aware of my vacancies in my neighborhood. i'm looking at it, how can that not be leased? the sign's been up as long as i've been in the neighborhood.
6:42 pm
remove this out -- you put a sign on your building, and you're in the clear. that's the solution, okay? because you already have a law, and you just have a big loophole in it. shutdown that loophole. let's consider the fee stuff later, but the loophole is what's killing it because, you know, anyone can just say i've got a sign on the building. who's not to say i'm not doing my best to sell it? >> president adams: commissioner ortiz? >> in the spirit of scoff laws and loopholes, we need to look into, i'm sure you can go get your cousin to register the business and keep it vacant, the business that never opens. trust me, if they didn't want to have it for 30 years open, there's very easy ways to
6:43 pm
circumvent. they can sign a phony lease, register a phony business, and then just put a sign in the door. that's how my mind works. >> i already see one of those in my neighborhood. >> president adams: okay. anymore questions? oh, commissioner yee riley? >> commissioner riley: yeah. my question is whenever we come up with the legislation, we always do outreach, so have you had a chance to talk to property owners to find out what is the problem, why is it vacant? because some might have legitimate reasons. >> yeah, thank you for that. so a couple of things i just wanted to mention. i think the reason why -- so supervisor fewer, we did a #fewervacancies effort in district one and worked with the richmond blog to get the word out and really listed, to your point, commissioner dwight, and said to neighbors, help us report.
6:44 pm
this is after d.b.i. said we have zero vacancies in the richmond. within two weeks, 159 vacancies were reported. there was an on-line reporting form. we gave that to d.b.i. d.b.i. went from having 40 properties on the list to over 200. i'm proud to say our neighborhood was instrumental in increasing that number, as well as the press and media around that. we then, based on that list of the number of vacant storefronts, our office sent a mail letter to every single one of those property owners, asking them to engage in our office because we really are trying to understand the problem. not surprisingly, the vast majority of those property owners didn't respond, but we did have some great conversations with some folks. some of those people were actually small businesses who
6:45 pm
are talking about -- so we got the small business owner, not the property owner who were talking about the property challenges that maybe they were having with their landlords or the challenges of trying to stay in their space. some of the folks were talking about kind of like permitting process, and so i think that gets to some of the other legislative ideas that are coming forth from either the mayor or supervisor yee, supervisor brown, i think are kind of putting forth some of these other legislative issues -- ways to get to that problem. but it didn't -- we didn't hear a lot around being able to address this issue, you know, and i think -- i was on maternity leave at this time, so i wasn't part of those conversations directly, but from my understanding, my colleague who was talking to some of these folks, it didn't feel like what we were proposing felt out of reach for them. in terms of the d.b.i. cost
6:46 pm
recovery fees, part of the issue is, you know, when we got the fewer vacancies, the 159 properties or storefronts that were reported, because it's, like, through a complaint process and not owner reported, the vast majority of these, d.b.i. has to confirm, this is indeed a commercial storefront, and then, they have to issue a letter, you know, to these -- so there is some staff time that goes into it. i appreciate kind of your push back on the -- whether or not we'll be able to staff up immediately. we introduced this before, that mayor's budget instructions came out. but i think there is actual staffing capacity that has to go into this regardless of -- because a lot of these are through complaints, so they have to verify that this is, indeed, a vacant storefront, that it is a commercial storefront that is, vacant, so i just wanted to respond to
6:47 pm
that, as well. >> commissioner riley: can you go a step further through the survey to identify those long-term vacancies, like five, ten, 15 years? >> commissioner dooley: yeah. >> sorry. say that one more time? >> commissioner riley: i say, you work with the community to find out all the vacant properties, storefronts. you take it a step further to identify those long-term vacancies? >> yeah. that was more -- that wasn't part of the reporting that we had initially asked for for folks, it was just kind of give us the addresses. i think we have -- we have that knowledge a little bit, but not in writing, thornt. it's more qualitative than quantitative. >> president adams: commissioner dwight? >> vice president dwight: yeah. i just -- all departments are not self-funding, and cost
6:48 pm
recovery is one way of funding a department and supplementing their funding, but, you know, these departments are all funded out of our taxpayer dollars, so a certain amount of it is just the work they've got to do. so i think looking for ways to stream line the -- identifying the worst offenders first, do the old parade is out. find the ones that have -- parade it out. find the ones that have been vacant the longest, and send them a letter. respond in 30 days, or you get a fine. i think there are some other ways to go about this that are less immediately punitive on those who are actively seeking to release their spaces, so enough of that conversation. but i agree with the spirit of it and most of what you're proposing to do, so --
6:49 pm
>> president adams: okay. >> commissioner riley: that's kind of what i'm suggesting. >> commissioner dooley: if would be very easy if you contacted the neighborhood business associations. they would be delighted to give you that information, so i'm sure -- we did this a number of years ago. i think irene was on the board then, where we actually sent out letters to these long time vacant pictures. >> commissioner riley: we took pictures. >> commissioner dooley: we took pictures, and we sent letters, and you know what the response was? everyone blew us off. my point is we got those top five most offensive places in each neighborhood, and we tried to contact them. but i think that's a way for you to reach out without leaving your office, is to just contact all the neighborhood associations and they will give you the list.
6:50 pm
>> >> enlist the support of the san francisco district merchants. this is the most critical in the city. it's not the remote vacancy that's off the grid, it's the vacancy that's right on your street right next to the store that's struggling to survive because no one else wants to go there because everything else is closed. i think by enlisting the support of our already present support groups, like cdma and the individual business and merchant associations, and we've got 33 or 34 of them already and more in the hopper, i think we'll get good coverage on the city, and i think you'll find you get your list pretty quickly. >> president adams: okay. any other commissioner comments before we go to public comment? okay. let's open it up for public comment. is there anybody from the public who would like to make
6:51 pm
comment on item number five? welcome. >> steven cornell, and i'm talking with the council of district merchants. just a couple things to consider. one, if there's going to be -- if it's public complaint, i hope there's going to be a place for the public to register. the ones that are registered should be available to us quite easily. that would be one. and how will this be handled by the city? the city is a huge landlord of commercial property, and sometimes they don't rent it, and i've come up with a few
6:52 pm
examples in the past. third street and howard never got rented, various storefronts. i've seen the mission street on the mission street, various empty storefronts there. those are all run by the department of real estate, which is, i think, the largest department of real estate in san francisco. are they going to be under the same penalties, and who's going to pay them? something to think about. thank you. >> president adams: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner dwight? >> vice president dwight: mr. cornell makes a good point. i live in dogpatch, and the old potrero police station has become a blighted property and is falling in on itself. what is a historic piece of architecture.
6:53 pm
so the city also needs to be held in account here because they do have properties throughout the city that are vacant, and for good reason, they're very expensive to fix them up. this police station, which we're trying -- we were trying to get for a community center requires probably 30 to $40 million in renovation, but it wouldn't have required that if the building had been occupied and secured 30 years ago because it was actually in pretty good condition for the first ten years until people started squatting there and burden of proving fires, and then, it became a cesspool, and other people started coming in. we all know what happens to those buildings whether they're publicly or privately owned, and what they do to our neighborhoods. it's not good. i would like to see this legislation go forward and put
6:54 pm
some teeth into what we already have. >> president adams: do we have a motion? >> vice president dwight: i'd like to move that we support the effort and the legislation, perhaps with a modification or recommendation to modify the waiting period, and not have a registration fee, which feels like a fine, but maybe even stay with the 270 days, if that's what it is. permit fee, i totally support getting rid of the bye on having a sign, and i totally support being aggressive about people complying within 30 days. >> commissioner zouzounis: second. >> i second that.
6:55 pm
>> through the president? >> director andrizzi. >> for those -- between authorize those that self-report and those that don't report, so are you intending to keep that distinction or not? >> vice president dwight: well, if you self-report in 30 days, you're in compliance. if you don't self-report, and you get outed, how you find out how long it's been since you didn't report, i mean, you could -- the department could then require you prove when that building went vacant, and you have your fine based on -- i think the fine -- excuse me, the registration fee, which is annual, right, will be retroactive to the time that that building is vacant, and
6:56 pm
it's on you to prove when your building is vacant, or there should be some -- maybe it's the 4-x, that's four years of vacancy, by the way. the fine is four times the fee. you've got to prove you've been have vacant for less than five years because the fee is 4x. >> commissioner dooley: i just don't want to see a loophole for folks that have been empty for many years and get some of their friends to inspect it and say it's compliant. because just because you've paid your fee doesn't mean you're necessarily compliant with actually keeping a storefront that is useable, and that is often the case. >> president adams: but we don't want to penalize the good landlord, either. that's why i support going back
6:57 pm
to the 180-day or 280-day rule. >> commissioner dooley: even if they've been -- >> president adams: if they've been vacant for 30 years, we know who they are. >> commissioner dooley: i just want to see the distinction between the normal businessperson and the scoff laws. >> vice president dwight: well, i think the scoff law who's been vacant for 20, 30, 40 years. in fact you've identified them as being out of compliance with the 30-day rule, so you should immediately levy a fee and a fine, and the onus is on them to prove they haven't been have a can't for four years, let alone 30 years. so there's nothing in here that goes aggressively after the
6:58 pm
30-year vacancy. >> commissioner dooley: they should. >> vice president dwight: that's a whole nother thing, which i'm sure would require the city attorney to weigh in on what the city's rights are here to force someone to rent their property versus registering it. so i mean, there are legitimate reasons why property owners do not lease out their properties. it could be that it requires a renovation that's out of their means, and they -- for tax reasons, they don't want to dispose of the property. i know a few people like that, and so they're be going to sell it. they're keeping it as an asset, but they don't want to manage the property, and they don't -- and they can't afford to upgrade it to standards that would allow it to be leased today. there are other issues that the city does make it difficult in certain areas to lease to anybody, so, you're like hey, starbucks want to lease my program. no, no, they can't do it where your building happens to be. well, they want to do it, and
6:59 pm
they're willing to pay me what it's worth. how do you handle that? how do you adjudicate that? i'm just suggesting, to move this forward as expediently as possible, the legislation have teeth. that loophole needs to be closed right away. i would like to see the current waiting period left alone. i guess -- my recommendation would be let's approve the -- support the legislation as proposed with the one exception, that the waiting period of 270 days should be kept. >> commissioner riley: what about a fee? >> commissioner dooley: before the fee? >> vice president dwight: before the fee, yes, before the fee is levied, and the fee be nonrefundable. just make it nonrefundable. >> president adams: do we have a second? >> vice president dwight: if i haven't muddied it up too much.
7:00 pm
>> no. >> no, that was very clear. >> i second. >> clerk: roll call vote. [roll call] >> commissioner riley: can we repeat the motion? >> clerk: yes. motion to pass with a recommendation to keep the 270 -- to pass as is with the recommendation to keep the 270-day waiting period. >> vice president dwight: and make the fee nonrefundable. >> clerk: and make the fee nonrefundable. >> commissioner riley: so the waiting period would be 270 days. >> clerk: before you'd have to pay -- >> vice president dwight: before you'd have to pay the fee. it's still mandatory you have to register. you still have to get on the registry in 30 days. that's still a requirement.