yourself, your family, your pets, your home, your workplace. we can't emphasize enough how important it is to be today is wednesday, january 16, 2019. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turnoff all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call]

>> clerk: we have a quorum, and our next item is item 2, president's announcements. >> good morning, everybody, and welcome to the big meeting, january 16, 2019. happy new year to everybody. so with that, to director hui, well done, presentation of 60 certificates in the graduation of the seismic safety outreach program on january 30. this training includes members from district six, supervisor vallie brown's district. it trains residents throughout the city to be prepared for -- to be prepared for the next big earthquake, which everybody would have felt a little one this morning at 4:30, and we now have several thousand residents in each neighborhood

to know what to do in each neighborhood to begin recovery. hopefully, please can attend. deputy director dan lowery will attend the training on january 30 and provide a report on d.b.i.s internal group, prioritizing the recently applied recommendations from the department's tall building study. d.b.i. welcomes this review of active buildings that are 240 feet and more higher, especially since there are more and more of these buildings coming to the skyline of san francisco. a big help to bill strong, d-b-i and special affairs manager, who received a letter

of special commendation from a customer with a problem resolution. also, thank you to director huey and d.b.i. staff who continue to take steps to make approximately 11,000 customers aware of the a.b. program. a per our most recent tracking report this week, we now have 4,300 property owners in compliance. though we still have a way to go with full compliance and are accepting six-month extensions. another a.b. notification will be soon sent, and i do urge any owner with a public accommodation, business must comply with the accessibility

requirements to submit the required documents as quickly as possible. the plan director, steven kwan was selected as the employee of the fourth quarter. executive director -- london breed's 30 executive directive to accelerate the approval of these affordable housing units. in addition, he's played a roll in the city's affordable housing program as well as our housing program here. in addition, steven also was selected by d.b.i.'s employee recognition committee as d.b.i.'s employee of the year in 2018. congratulations again to all of our quarterly winners in 2018 and to steven for winning both quarter four and employee of the year.

madam secretary, that concludes my announcements. >> okay. thank you. would steven like to come forward? >> would steven kwan come up to the podium. >> hi. good morning. i want to thank everybody for recognizing the work that we put into every day for the department in making sure that we review permits in an expeditious matter, and we provide the customer service necessary to get everyone through the system. i -- you know, going forward, i continue, you know, to pursue that passion, and make sure, you know, everything is addressed in a proper manner. and we work diligently to inspect all accessory dwelling units and other projects coming forward for the department. thank you very much. >> well done, steven. thank you.

[applause] >> okay. thank you. congratulations again. that concludes our president's announcements portion. is there any public comment on the president's announcement? seeing none, item three, general public comment. the bic will take public comment on matters within their jurisdiction that are not part of today's agenda. >> good morning, director hui, commissioners. i sent a copy of the statement

that i'm about to read to sonia harris this morning, so it should be included in the record and also, as i was leaving my house this morning to cycle down here -- my name is lee heidhus. on january 12 and january 13, my wife and i filed separate electrical complaints. without a call from d.b.i., both complaints were closed the day they were opened. we filed the complaints because our next-door neighbor illegally and absent a permit installed what only can be called cheap, dime store lighting throughout the rear of her property. the outdoor lighting is not grounded. the back yard shed to which the outdoor lighting is affixed floods severely during rain

storms such as the one we are currently experiencing. the absolute hazard of this lighting prompted me to come to the commission and speak out today. these cheap lights are hanging from garden shrubbery, trees and bushes. the lights are attached to the property owner's home, are hanging by a metal hook attached to the property to the north our neighbor does not own, ran along bushes and strong along a shed in the rear. this shed, corroborated by a may 2018 land survey which can be found on a grand dote at city hall trespasses onto our property. the property owner is not a licensed contractor. she is an amateur who climbed onto her kitchen roof while struggling to install the illegal lighting and wiring.

these lights shine directly into our home. it is light trespass, we did not give our permission. for d.b.i. to close our complaint is insulting and outrageous. our complaints were not closed by an electrical inspector. both complaints were closed by building inspector ed dougherty. i called him twice, i did not even receive a kurty call in return. the reason given for both complaints was nuisance. what nuisance? a site inspect will corroborate what i am complaining to the commission this morning. closing complaints absent a physical inspection is beyond outrageous. sadly, this cavalier behavior of senior inspectors is all-too-common with this agency when a citizen falls into disfavor. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good morning, commissioners. regina dick andrizzi. i'm here for item five, but i thought i'd take the opportunity to congratulate the entire team on the work that we're doing. it's big and complicated project, and i think they're doing a great job. they've been a tremendous partner with our office, especially tom working with my staff, rhea maldonado. i just wanted you to know they're doing a great job, and i really enjoy working with them and really appreciate their work. thank you. >> thank you, and thank you for all your work. >> okay. is there any additional general public comment? seeing none, item four,

commissioner's questions and matters. 4-a, inquiries to of staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various policies, practices, and procedures which are of interest to the commission. >> i don't really have much more. i'm just wondering if there's any -- has there now -- i think it's been 30 days. is there anymore about the new demolition ordinance that's been proposed by supervisor peskin's office? has there been any engagement? >> i don't -- we receive the draft, and then, bill is looking into it, but i don't think anything new coming out yet. >> bill string, legislator public affairs. that's correct. we have been in touch with the

supervisor's office. they have extended the opportunity to meet with staff in order to discuss the first version that we've seen that was released just before the kma christmas holidays, and i've sent that around to senior d.b.i. staff. we have not yet decided to convene a meeting, but i do expect that to happen possibly later this month. >> okay. and -- yeah, okay. and -- the other thing, if you could be cognizant of it. one of the other things, if you could give us the time frame on that, we would be kind of building it around our joint meeting with the planning. i haven't been able to engage -- that's one of the reasons we want to have the joint meeting. you maybe next hearing could give us more information on where you think and the information where this is going?

>> yeah, i'd be happy to do that. i do remember attending the press event the supervisor had when he announced it right before it was introduced, and he said he was hoping to actually go through the board process by march. so i expect he is thinking about the first three months of the year to focus on this particular ordinance. >> okay. commissioner, please? >> yeah. those are exactly my concerns, as well, that we get this timetable established so that we can setup this joint meeting with the planning commission. following up on this is a very high priority, and the other piece of it that we had discussed was there was supposed to be some staff engagement between planning staff and d.b.i. staff so that we could do some background work on clearing up any differences of our definition

of demolition. to your knowledge, has that been proceeding or was it held in abeyance? >> again, i don't think anything has happened during this holiday period, but i will circle back with staff after this meeting and see if we can put that into motion. >> i appreciate that. the sooner we can do that, the better. thank you. >> thank you, bill. no further. >> okay. all right. next item is 4-b, future meetings and agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items that can be placed on the agenda the next meeting and other future meeting of the basis inspection commissi-- bu inspection commission. the commission will actually have a special budget meeting on january 30 at 9:00 a.m. in this room, 416, and our next

regular building inspection commission meeting will be on february 20. and at both of those hearings, it will be the first and second hearing of the budget. >> fine. >> okay. is there any public comment on items 4-a and 4-b, okay. seeing none, our next item is item five, discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance amending the building code to require vacant or abandoned special storefront owners to pay annual registration fee at the time of registration, require annual inspections of vacant and abandoned storefronts, and update regulations to require registration of vacant and abandoned storefronts. >> commissioners, bill strong. i'm here to introduce ian fragosi from supervisor fewer's office here's here to introduce

the changes in the regulations of the vacant storefronts. we've been working closely with the supervisor's office to pass this, and i'm sure ian will give you the details on this. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is ian fragosi, legislative aide to supervisor sandra fewer. i'd first like to share just a bit about the goals of this legislation, and then, i can walk-through the specific changes. as part of a broader strategy to reduce the number of vacant storefronts citywide, the purpose of supervisor fewer's legislation is to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the current vacant storefront

registry. so better tracking will ensure that vacant storefronts are promptly identified, registered, and monitored in order to maintain or remain safe and avoid hazards and nuisances that result from being vacant or abandoned. so specifically, we hope to improve the vacant storefront registry by ensuring that all vacant properties are identified or registered regardless of whether the property is being advertised for sale or lease, by increasing d.b.i. resources to enforce annual requirements, clarifying the enforcement process, and penalties for failure to register, and requiring annual inspections of vacant storefronts to ensure that they're safe and avoid becoming a hazard. so since introduction, we have also made two small amendments to the original language, which we have discussed with the code

advisory committee, which i will also go over with you, and you can see actually that should be in front of you, the specific changes that were made. this legislation will do the following. as you can see on page three, line one, this removes s 103-a-5.13 of the building code which says that a commercial storefront shall not be considered vacant if the storefront is actively being offered for sale, lease, or rent. so this provision has really diminished the purpose of the registry, which is to identify vacant storefronts, and it has resulted in long-term vacancies, sometimes 10 or 15 years not being registered solely because there's a for lease sign placed in the window. so the next change on page

three, line 18, changes section 103-a-5.2, in order to require owners to register their storefronts and pay the $711 annual registration fee at the time of registration as opposed to having a 270-day grace period. and so as you can see on page four, line three, we have also made a change to the originally introduced legislation so that if a renter -- excuse me, so if an owner rents out the storefront to a tenant less than a year after the date it was registered as vacant, the owner shall be refunded up to half of the registration fee based on any remaining days before the storefront's annual renewal date. and so our original proposal, as you can see there, was to do a prorated refund, but we found that that would be a little too complicated and burdensome to do administratively, so instead made the change to a half

refund. and on -- next change, on page four, line eight, we add a new section, 103-a-5.3 to require annual inspections of vacant storefronts at the owner's expense in order to confirm that they remain safe and do not pose a hazard. and this annual inspection shall be performed within 60 days of the vacant storefront's annual renewal date. so this is where the second can change that we have made to the introduced legislation is, and that is to allow a third-party licensed professional to conduct these inspections and require the owner to provide a report in order to comply with the maintenance of the storefront exterior and interior as pointed out in those two codes referenced. so page four, line 25 is the next change, which changes section 103-a-5.4 to require d.b.i. to issue a notice of

violation to the owner of a vacant storefront who hasn't registered and paid the registration fee after being warned by a written notice from d.b.i. that they have an unregistered vacant storefront. so in order to cure the n.o.v., the owner must register their storefront, pay the registration fee, which is $711, and pay a penalty fee of four times the registration fee in order -- as -- for their -- their failure to register their vacancy. so just to clarify, this is not a notice of violation for having a vacancy, and the legislation is not designed to punish owners simply for having a vacant property. our intention is to improve the reporting and tracking of vacant storefronts, and the notice of violation is in effect for owners who fail to register their vacancy. so we want to thank the code advisory committeetor

recommending approval of this legislation with the amendments that are now before you, including here, and we hope to have the support of the full building inspection commission today, so please let me know if you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. why don't we hear public comment, and then, if there's any -- i have just one or two questions. >> certainly. >> if that's okay with commissioners. okay. thank you for that. >> is there public comment on item five? >> good morning again, commissioners. regina dick andrizzi, director of the small business commission. the commission heard this matter on monday. you were forwarded the letter last night, but you might not have time to read it. so first, the commission completely supports and appreciates and what supervisor fewer is doing in terms of getting -- wanting to strengthen and close the

loopholes around the current vacancy registry ordinance. so the commission is clearly in support of having the mandatory 30-day registration, and the two key items that they had primary discussion on were one, just wanting to make sure in requiring the property owner to do the inspection, that because we do have serial -- you know, property owners that are keeping their properties vacant, just want to make sure that the department of building inspection can and will exercise all of its authority should there be an inspection that is falsified. i don't want to make it misinterpreted that we're

concerned about putting that requirement on the property owner. it's more we want to make sure that we're not creating another loophole by putting that responsibility on the property owner. and then second, the other big topic of discussion is we -- i think the commission recognized that a vast majority of the property owners that are going to have to register are going to be those that are -- that do actively keep their properties occupied, but there might be a time period between a previous tenant and a new tenant where they're trying to lease it out, or if a tenant just decides not to complete their lease. so in the initial vacancy ordinance, it says you had 270 days to find a new tenant. so the commission has sort of

expressed its concern for property owners that are proactive requiring them to pay the filing fee, it seems a little punitive, and that to allow them a little bit of time, in our letter, it said the 270 days or some time reasonable perhaps determined by you or the supervisor, if that consideration is taken into consideration? and then really be more heavy on those that do not proactively register their property. so when d.b.i. needs to go and do the notice. so -- that's -- my time's up, but i'm happy to take any questions on that. >> sure. commissioner clinch, why don't you go first . >> i just have a logistical question. the motion passed unanimously 7-0. what does that refer to? >> so the commission heard

this -- the commission heard -- our small business commission heard the legislation -- >> okay. thank you. >> -- so they're recommending approval in terms of the overall intent of the ordinance? and as recommended, there were some recommended changes or modifications for consideration. >> commissioner warsaw, please. >> i appreciate you being here, miss dick andrizzi. you bring up a specific thing about the property owners that have serial vacancies for a long period of time. that's something that affects the neighborhood tremendously. do you have any thoughts

oratioor recommendations that might be a possible good remedy to deal with that very troublesome issue? >> the commission has not deliberated on that, so i cannot provide you with specifics with relationship to that? also want to express my appreciation for supervisor fewer including and amending the ordinance to do some data and reporting? that was a recommendation from our office that if we have some robust reporting, perhaps that can help us sort of more narrowly target and/or build out other areas that are more robust in getting to -- getting to those serial individuals or those that are just keeping their vacant property? i think down the road, you know, perhaps something that can be looked at is do -- can we create a program that would incentivize these property

owners to vertically subdivide, so the commercial properties could be available for sale. >> you know, you bring up something very good, that, you know, while we want to have sticks, we also want to have carrots out there. so when people are doing everything they can do find new uses, does the small business commission have some recommendations as to how we and bic can really assist more greatly in making it easier for new small businesses to come in, whether they be temporary uses, whether they be, you know, expansions of existing businesses? you know, when we talk about properties being vacant, you know, clearly, we know sometimes the approval process takes a very, very long time,

and you can have an interested tenant, but it's a vacant property. do you have some suggestions where we as a commission can work with you and your constituents to incentivize the positive things that we all care so much about. >> right. so supervisor fewer has built into the ordinance having d.b.i. with oewd do a reach out to the registered property owners. so for those that may need some help or assistance in finding tenants, with the new planning changes for allowing new popups or flexible use spaces, then, we can work with the property owner to help sort of kind of

bring different entities together to perhaps fill the space. so supervisor fewer thought about that in terms of really having that direct connection with oewd, and our office is always involved with that, as well, and d.b.i. >> yeah, that's great because just as mayor breed is talking about where do we find ways to work with our associates in planning to speed up the process on housing construction, our commercial corridors and finding new businesses as retail gets tougher and tougher and there are more vacancies is a comparable issue, and we really want to do everything in our power to create flexibility and, you know, have less red tape to get these good results, whether they be popups or new businesses to make our

corridors more healthy. so obviously, we appreciate all the input you can give us as to how we can be more helpful in eliminating red tape. >> right. and i think with supervisor fewer's request is part of the data tracking to monitor those owners that are wanting to utilize and engage oewd's services. and that gives us information in terms of how willing -- is it an issue that a property owner needs some help or is it a property owner is just not wanting to do anything. so now adding that data reporting and can help us better information, you know, where property owners are. >> okay. thank you very much. >> commissioner walker, did you -- >> yes. i think that as i look through this, the idea of a licensed

professional doing the inspection was -- it's good because i do sort of speed up the process, but what does that mean. does that define somewhere of what a licensed professional is? is it a specific requirement? is it a therapist? >> maybe mr. fragosi can help. >> thank you. also wanted to first of all thank the small business commission and director andrizzi being here. we hear those concerns, and i can speak to those, as well. but yes. after working with d.b.i., and that's where we kind of received that feedback and working with the code advisory committee, that it would be better and easier administratively and more effectively to allow third-party professionals -- maybe there's somebody from d.b.i. who you can speak to

specifically because i'm not exactly sure how that is defined and how that would be regulated, but that is a recommendation that we did agree with. >> and i would assume they're submitting something under penalty of perjury to avoid the issue of fraud. >> yeah. tom kwan. good morning. first of all, they would give the plans back to the owner, and then the owner would hire the professional. the owner would be responsible to do the inspections. and then, if we have any doubt, we can send our inspector to check out, too. >> well, in this case, a licensed professional -- in the case of something structural, we would assume a licensed professional would mean a structural engineer. what does this mean, a licensed professional, in the case of a vacant building. >> well, they look at the

circumference of the building, make sure nobody would break-in. >> i guess that, but what does professional mean? >> oh, you need to have somebody that has a license. you cannot just have somebody out -- >> what license? >> either engineer, architect, or the contractor. >> okay. perfect. that's wh that's what i wanted to know. and also to tag onto what miss andrizzi-dick was talking about, about the flexibility of the use of these buildings, it's really important. it would include things like nonprofits, child care, arts uses. i mean, there's a lot of opportunities that are community serving that currently, they have to go through a change of use to use. so having this data and being able to have someone from the neighborhood, either the supervisor or a community group

determine the need, it's really important for that flexibility, having this data to support it, because it's complicated, you know? it's -- even for restaurant use or arts use, sometimes you have to go through a change of use. it would be great to loosen that up so that we really aadaadapt to the special environment these days where retail is feeling the pain. >> yeah, we usually consider those over the counter. we are trying to help those small businesses to streamline the process. >> great. >> okay. did that answer your question, commissioner walker? >> yeah, absolutely. >> okay. commissioner -- >> i have a question about this licensed professional that's

hired by the property owner to say that everything's fine, as opposed to having building inspection go out and do it and be the independent source of evaluation you know, so i do have some concerns as to where the details are on that. you know, my inclination is -- i'd rather see this stay a function of d.b.i. that we inspect it and get out there on an annual basis. you know, we're collecting fees. if we need a higher fee to get inspection, that's fine. i always worry when we're having the property owner to hire someone to evaluate and say everything's fine. so i guess -- you know, this is obviously a conflict because you obviously had written it

that way. d.b.i. department had requested this change, and now i'm saying i'd rather see it the other way, so i'm very uneasy with it changing to this professional when it's so loosely defined. secondly, the whole issue of where the complaints go when people perceive it as being a nuisance in some way. we know that annual is not a way to do this. we have the unfortunate situation that the reality of every commercial strip is as soon as you have a vacant storefront, it becomes a source of homeless, graffiti,

encampment. an annual inspection of it was secure on the day that i went there doesn't handle it. i really wonder how are we coordinating maybe with 311 in generating trigger points on reported problems that, you know, force more vigorous engagement. those are my two things. whether you in your heart of hearts really believe the independent professional is the correct way to go on it, and then, how do we make sure on it -- on the other 364 days is really getting the respect that it deserves. >> thank you for that, commissioner. we will definitely continue to engage with the department about the best course having hard, and i would just ask for your second point about the ongoing inspections, just ask

maybe some clarity from director hui about how that currently is monitored as it is now, because we know we have a lot of vacant storefronts that are causing blight, that are causing a nuisance that are not even being reported right now. so i'd kind of like to know that is currently being -- i guess we can maybe get some clarity about how that's currently being tracked and monitored and how -- i mean, we believe that having this accurate -- much more accurate count will actually help with that because if there are reports that hey, this property is repeatedly a nuisance, and we already have that in the database, yes, this has been registered as a vacant storefront, and we've had x number of complaints about it, that's going to be much easier to track and to monitor and to kind of abate those issues rather than it being not

registered and sort of off the radar because there's a for lease sign in the window for the last ten years. so we do feel this is going to help with that. and i also want to add to that, and director andrizzi also talked about this. one of the things that we're very intentional about is we're making sure we're working with did the b.i., office of small business and with the office of economic and workforce development to provide information directly to these property owners so they know that these offices exist. the offices provide a lot of great resources that these property owners are maybe not aware of, and having an accurate count and an accurate list of those storefronts as opposed to, you know, 40 citywide when we know there's thousands. that's going to allow us to actually connect them to these resources and hopefully along with some of the other efforts that were mentioned here through mayor breed or supervisor tang and other

efforts, that's going to help us. it's a package. this is a large -- it's a broader strategy. this is one piece of that trot gee, and we feel that just having this accurate count of those storefronts is going to go a really long way to making the rest of this package work effectively. and not having that list is going to make it difficult to connect this list to these property owners. so once we have that, we'll have a much easier time doing that. but yeah, if there's anything that d.b.i. would like to add to the current process and how this will help enhance that. >> well, again, i completely agree with you getting these registered and having it, you know, on record is a fabulous first step, and we all applaud your efforts and the supervisor's to make should happen. i think that what i'm looking at is a very granular, hands

on. i'm very active in my community, and it's a very active district. when we get complaints about these properties, you call 311. sometimes it goes to d.b.i., sometimes it goes to homeless. they go all over the place based on how somebody phrased a comment and how the 311 person handling it directed it. and i think that when i'm suggesting is that possible we have some conversations with 311 so that as they get this deluge of calls about problems that the tracking mechanism really always cycles into either d.b.i. or your office or somebody who will really be trying to get this assessment of which are the real problem reports, which are the ones that are the persistent problems so that, you know, we

can develop the data to know how to more actively pursue the real problems. you know, i think it's to all of our benefit, and as i see the current situation with many departments all dealing with the same problem, it gets very disbursed and there is no one place where we really get an accurate read on it, and therefore, the problem really doesn't get solved well. >> okay. commissioner walker and then commissioner lee. >> yeah. i think that the issue of these inspections -- i mean, we see cases sometimes where there is a licensed professional who has advised the property owner incorrectly about what's appropriate for vacant property -- maintaining a vacant property. so maybe having more -- a fact

sheet that -- and some way of advising the licensed professional community about what a vacant property program requires would be helpful. so they are inspecting with the same rules as we are, so i don't know -- i mean, with -- with -- with, like, structural engineers who are part of a licensed professional independent review, they are aware of the rules, so it's probably just making people aware of what the rules are. >> all right. bill strong again. i think all of you are aware that we do use this property, as the director mentioned, with special inspections. it's actually very specifically outlined and detailed in the original katey tang ordinance for vacant storefronts what

these issues are. i believe we were having a discussion with supervisor fewer that brought up this use of the owner being responsible for this additional annual inspection was both kind of a carrot and a stick in order to give some incentive to get the property leased again and for rent because it means they're going to have to make sure those maintenance requirements in the ordinance are, in fact, checked by a licensed professional. and by putting that burden on the owner's self-then there's an additional cost involved, and we hope incentive to not keep the building vacant. i think the instances of somebody violating a license are fairly rare, but if we

found anybody performing fraudulent type of behavior, we would report it, and they would of course risking their licenses. and i doubt a lot of engineers or architects are willing to go that way. meantime, the department is doing doing 160,000 inspections a year. we didn't want to burden already overly stretched resources by making this a departmental item. but as the director said, we can certainly spot check if there is a reason to do so. >> commissioner lee? >> regarding the inspection reports, i think if the inspection process mirrors something like what the a.b.e. program does, have the property owners hire a professional -- licensed professional, submit a check list and photographs to the department, i think that would solve a lot of concerns.

and if the department could also develop some technical guidelines for the inspectors as to what we're looking for, and that help guides the contractor, architect, engineer what to do when they're inspecting these vacant properties. and the other one is regarding the accurate -- i mean, if the whole intent of this legislation is to get an accurate count of the vacant storefronts, do we even know how many storefronts there are in this city? there is address -- this is addressed to supervisor fewer's office. >> yeah. ian may want to talk about some recent post office data that we did receive. >> yes. so we did receive some data recently from the post office, so i don't have an exact count of the number of storefronts in the city. however, i know that the number of vacancies, according to the

post office data, was in the thousands. district six, i think, had around 1300 according to that data. and i'm trying to remember if there was another one that was in the thousands. i don't want to just assume. i know for sure district six did, but when you total all of this, you know, there was definitely a couple thousand vacancies. interestingly enough, according to that data, it actually underreported the number of vacancies in district one according to the count that we had actually done, our office. according to the post office data, it said that there was about 62 vacancies in district one. when we last -- this past march and april, did a count with the help of the richmond district

blog, there was 146, and there were zero that were reported based on our current ordinance because of a lot of reasons that we had cited here. so that's really what sort of drove us to action. so i can't unfortunately give you an exact count of the number of storefronts. i can tell you that the number of vacancies according to the post office data was in the thousands. >> so you mentioned the richmond district has 156 vacancies. are those recorded on our vacancy list? >> yeah. those vacancies have been recorded, however, they're not all required to register because there's a 270-day grace period and many of those have for lease signs in the windows, some of them for ten or more years. so they are on the radar of the d.b.i., but because of the current requirements of the ordinance, they're not currently registered. >> so are you currently satisfied with the current process of reporting to get the

vacancies on the list? >> with the current process? >> mm-hmm. >> i would say our goal is to encourage self-reporting, and by limiting -- by making this so that the property owner has 30 days to register, our goal is to make that much easier to drive self-reporting rather than forcing d.b.i. or forcing citizens to complain and then d.b.i. have to send, you know, inspectors out there and go through all that. instead, we would like to see store owners register promptly. >> you would like to see store owners saying okay, my tenant is leaving, i better report this to d.b.i. >> correct. >> okay. >> mr. fragosi, to you and your office. thank you. i think it's good legislation, it's ambitious legislation in that i think you're strengthening the mechanism so we can get a more real picture what's going on out there. we're all in support of anything that would, you know,

do -- that works towards blight and so forth as a commission. the unintended consequences is the thing we're always trying to troubleshoot and figure out. and obviously, it's important that we have the business commission in there, and thank you, director for coming here and speaking to that. so question one -- i'm just wondering -- question one would be while you were taking this journey on revisiting the lemgs lation and strengthening it, was there much argument brought up in regard to many reasons from the property owners you know, that the zoning is wrong, which a few of my commissioners have touched base on, which we would rent this all day long if there was a different zoning. >> that's a great question. so our office sent out a letter to every vacant storefront that we were able to count during this. we wanted to hear feedback from these owners about what the reason was that their

storefront was vacant. many of those who responded say oh, we just became vacant recently. we're in conversation with a new tenant right now. they really had nothing to say, everything was fine. for a few that i did talk to, there was one owner that i did talk to that said yeah, if it was more flexible, the use that we could do. there was a couple folks that said yeah, maybe if the -- if the zoning was a little bit more flexible, it would be easier for me to find tenants, which is why supervisor fewer supported supervisor tang's legislation to allow for flexible retail use. this is an ongoing effort. i mean, the mayor has taken this up now. so there are a lot of carrots that are being proposed, and that we are also supportive of. but supervisor fewer's focus has been from the beginning of the glaring inaccuracy of the

count and really trying to fix the fact if we don't know the scale of the problem, how are we going to possibly address it? that's the position she's coming from. so we did take into account the feedback that we heard from a couple of vacant storefront owners saying it would be great to have a little bit more flexibility. also we've heard from our small business community who have complained about the vacancies ar and the fact that they've been vacant for so many years and how it's hurting their business. no one wants to go to a corridor that's vacant. that's the complaints we have heard and that's why we've chosen to focus on this piece of it, and we also again really support the other pieces of this strategy that go along with that. >> okay. that's interesting. i know i sit in the builder developer's seat, and developers complaint all the time particularly with the

process of they're building a brand-new project in the area, and planning are trying to make it more retail oriented and walkability and so on, and their market strategies and studies show them that is not the way to go, that that is going to be very difficult to rent and so on, and it's going to be a difficult process. and, like, so -- like, for those new buildings, and i can actually speak directly to it myself because i had a building where we -- most of it was office, and it sat vacant for almost two years before we got the tenant, and that was the process. it was every day activated out there, trying to market it. and then, the retail part of it, when we're trying to get it -- it was challenging. it was kind of dark, it was not in a good area, it was not very walkable, but it's zoned retail. and we went through a few different possible tenants, but that was at least two, three, years. we're on our third year on that, as well. and we went to the planning

department, and it was funny -- interesting is we went to planning department, and we were rejected for the retail use, and it wasn't for a new planner. it was for a seasoned planner. i had another planner pull me aside and say no, the zoning is wrong. i think if you present it in a different way, you'll get it approved, and you do. shout out to edgar. i think that's a lot of problems that property owners are having, they're getting different interpretations of uses, and they might qualify and they might just not get the right information. i think it's a huge -- i would imagine the unintended consequence -- now we're going to have a lot of appeals on these decisions on the penalties. and those are going to come in front of us. i would imagine a lot of the arguments would be we tried, we tried, we tried, and we can't

get this worked out because of one reason or another. [inaudible] >> deputy city attorney rob kapla. the existing commercial storefronts ordinance has a provision which we are not changing or this ordinance does not change. as you know, one part was a for lease sign or actively offering would mean you did not need to register. the ordinance would remove that provision, but there still is a provision if you were seeking a permit for the commercial storefront, any way, you are not a vacant under the definition of the -- >> but your permit is open. >> if you are seeking a permit that would change or move -- or do anything with the commercial storefront area itself -- so if it's a three-story building and a permit for another part of the building, that would not qualify. but a permit going through that storefront itself, you would not need to register a vacant. >> right. and i'm reading into the weeds here. i'm very supportive of the

legislation. but these unintended consequences. you have two types of permits. you have a warm shell permit, and then, you have kind of a t.i. permit. and if you have a t.i. permit pulled, that would trigger off -- let's say if it's open for two years, would that trigger off this legislation that you would -- >> the language is relatively general. if you have a permit that would impact the use in the commercial storefront area, it's not defined as vacant. >> so it doesn't break it down t.i. or -- >> no. >> so a genuine person would be able to stay off this list if they can demonstrate that they've got an open permit for trying to get a tenant, correct? >> yes. >> okay. that's good. good clarification. thank you. all right. oh, commissioner -- >> sorry, just a comment for my fellow commissioners' benefit because i'm sure we're going to vote on this. i won't vote for the current

legislation because i agree with the small business commission or the small business department's recommendation about the 270 days and not having to pay right away, so i just want everyone to know that. >> in other words, your objection to it, commissioner clinch, would be -- >> the requirement that the fees be paid immediately. >> i think it's within 30 days. >> well, i'm in favor of the small business group suggesting it be 270 days for a grace period. >> so -- so -- >> half a year. >> so as i come in and apply for this permit, the difference is i'm going to pay for it when i come in. the old days, i would apply for it, and i would get a grace period of how long? >> six months. >> six months. now, what they're saying is they would rather see 270 days, versus what the legislation -- >> 30 days. >> 30 days. >> but i believe it said, and

if someone can correct me, it was 270 days, and then, it was struck out. i think the old legislation said 270 days. >> did we get clarification on that? >> it's 30 days. >> deputy city attorney rob kapla. the existing chapter requires registration, and then, you have 270 days to pay your registration fee. >> the existing? >> the existing as is in the code right now. the amendment -- the revised -- or revisions in this ordinance, included the amended ordinance you have before you would remove the 270-day grace period and require payment when you come in for registration. >> yeah. so as i pull the permit, i pay for it. >> yes. it's 30 days from being vacant before you have to register and then, you pay your registration fee at the time of registration. >> and commissioner clinch, bear in mind one thing they added in. if for some reason three months down the road, i will be entitled to half that money back if i get it leased within six months. >> correct.

the change we highlighted here is half of that money would be refunded. and i just want to say the reason that -- again, we've been working closely with d.b.i. in drafting this ordinance. the reason why we felt it was necessary to require payment immediately as opposed to 270 days is they're doing the work. the inspectors are going out and doing the inspection. when they go out and they get a complaint, hey, there's a vacant storefront that's unregistered, they send out an inspector, do the inspection. they're not getting the cost recou recouperated, all the owner has to do is say oh, i didn't know, put up a sign in the window, and they're off. however, in light of these sugg