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 suggestions from the small business commission, we are

exploring the idea or the possibility maybe of -- if it's possible to for -- whether -- when there's self-reported -- we're exploring this, so i don't know if this is the case, but if d.b.i. does not have to send out an inspector for a self-reported vacancy, and we can save those costs, then maybe at that point we can provide a grace period for payment for those businesses that self-report, but still require immediate payment within 30 days for those who do not register and have to be caught through a complaint. so that's a possible idea that we're exploring which i hope would satisfy the concerns from the small business commission, and again, that's just something that we're exploring now that we've heard these recommendations from yesterday. >> so commissioner clinch, just to close out, self-report versus one that doesn't get the

break. >> well, i guess the question for our attorney -- >> well, they're working out the language on that. that's a possibility. we could approve it based on those recommendations if you'd like. >> yeah. >> whatever you want. let's just see. >> yeah. so if it's complaint driven or -- >> i think that's a question, maybe, for the city attorney. again, this is very newly -- >> if we approve this today, that would be one of our recommendations, obviously. we can't guarantee that it's going to get there by the time it would be asked, but we, along with the business commission, have those concerns, but it's a friendly amendment. commissioner warsaw? >> yeah. one of the things that we're constantly doing is the frustrating position is we see a problem, and we hear egregious things that are really the extreme of what bad actors do in that situation, and we feel we have to have a remedy for it.

and what happens is a lot of good actors now have their life more costly or complicated or difficult. and the bad actors are with them, but they always seem to find a way around it anyhow. so in a situation like this, you know we talk about, you know, there are a number of properties that sit vacant for years and years and years. and i don't care if they're paying $711 registration a year, that doesn't solve the problem. they're doing a real harm to their commercial corridor. one of the basics of capitalism if you're offering something, and the market isn't telling you that it's worth it, then, you either adjust your price to find where the correct market value is or not, and, you know, you either get the situation

resolved or you continue to have it with the market telling you what you're asking is irrational or not competitive to market. what i keep hearing from small businesses is i was forced out because my rent was tripled. then, it sat there for five years empty because he was complete inflexible on i want this, and i don't care, i'd rather leave it empty. you know, while it's the property owner's right to say i will not rent it for any less than what i want, we have property rights, that's your responsibility, we also have to look at the impact that it has on the community when you have these very long-term vacancies. and i really am challenged to think what would be the way to

separate out the most intractable people who are just willing to let something sit there for years and years and year and incentivize them that this is creating impacts on your whole community beyond your individual rights that you need to be cognizant of. so i'm wondering if there's anything in this vacant property registration that can set standards whereby if it goes on much longer, you know, if it perpetuates, that there's an escalation, because it clearly impacts the communities

negatively. >> deputy city attorney rob kapla. as the commissioner points out, there are a multitude of issues and reasons that vacant storefronts remain vacants, and the problems that it causes. this ordinance is solely strictly designed to monitor and make sure the properties are modified and don't fall into disrespect, but in that sense, it would be difficult to accommodate other motives or purposes within the building code, as you mentioned, but there may be other legislative avenues for that. >> and i guess that's what i'm asking. it's not necessarily that this is a building code. unfortunately, we're discussing that in this context, so you're correct to clarify that. but i guess my question to

supervisor and mr. fragosi, are there other ways, are there other remedies? you know, we look to work with our legislative partners to make sure when these situations arise, that, you know, between our enforcement of code within the pervasive what you can do, what you can legislatively prescribe, and what the city attorney can do in terms of enforcement all really come together effectively to really deal with the core problem. people want us to solve problems, and it's very frustrating to them when we say it's not our job. we all have good reasons why we have limits to what we can do, but finding ways to better work

in partnership and in concert to get the legislative, administrative, and enforcement teams all on the same page when we see really clear problems, you know, really is -- is what -- you know i mean hope we can do. as commissioner mccarthy pointed out, if it's a question of interpretation of use, and we can broaden that to really encourage people to find ways to make the properties more attractive and rentable, that's fabulous. if we can work with the small business commission to facilitate all their wonderful work on trying to make it easier to do business and have more viable commercial corridors, that's great. so i guess what i'm really looking for is maybe not what

we're going to vote on today, but how can we really work with you to really see the big goal and be partners with you in moving every element of it in concert so that we're really accomplishing what we want to do. >> yeah, yeah. i completely agree, and that's why -- you know, i just want to mention again. it's not -- we don't pretend this one ordinance is going to solve this very complex issue of vacant storefronts. we think it's part of the solution. we think it's a very important part of the solution, but again, we are very supportive of other efforts that are going on as part of this larger strategy, and we're committed to continuing to do that. these are issues that we're talking about that we're grappling with, we've been grappling with for months and

months now, since i've been with the supervisor. we feel after many months of discussion, working with the small business commission, and office of workforce, in pointing them and being able to directly connect them with the resources that we can offer the them that maybe they're not taking advantage of it today, while it won't solve the whole problem, but it will make a difference. we'd appreciate your support in this legislation so we can take a step in the right direction. >> thank you. >> thank you so much, mr. fragosi, for all the extra time you give us. thank you, director andrizzi, for coming here. i think we're at the time where we need to call it. commissioner clinch, you give

some thoughts what way you'd like to frame a friendly amendment? >> yeah. i'd say my motion would be to approve, but with the amendment that self-reporters are given a prorated rebait if they rent in a -- in less time, and the other amendment was having to do with -- i guess that was it. >> yeah, it was self-reporting versus nonreporting. >> yeah. >> city attorney, would you -- is that clear, what you are -- would you -- >> deputy city attorney rob kapla. the commission can recommend approval with suggestions or potential amendments such as this, and the -- the requirement is that the commission consider the proposal so obviously we can -- the commission cannot mandate additions, but these would be recommendations. >> okay. so with that -- >> so it's a yes or no vote,

then. >> so it's a yes or no vote with the friendly amendment on the yes, if you wanted that. so what i propose is to take vote based on commissioner clinch's friendly amendment that self-reporting would not have to pay -- would get 30 days? >> 30 days, yeah, but prorated return. >> would get 30 days to pay but with a prorated return. is that it? >> yes. >> as a recommendation to this. so call the question. >> okay. so there's a motion and is there a second? >> second. >> okay. i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call]

>> motion carries unanimously. our next item is item six, discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance, file number 181108 amendmenting the police code to require sellers or landlords of real property in san francisco to disclose to buyers or tenants that the property is located within the flood risk zone delineated on the san francisco public utilities commission's 100-year storm flood risk map, in addition to other requirements. >> thank you. and thank you for waiting. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. my name is sarah minnick, and i work in the wastewater enterprise of the san francisco public utilities commission? i'm here to speak to you today about the 100-year storm flood risk disclosure ordinance? and give a little bit of background on this proposed ordinance? so if we could bring up the

slides? thank you. the flood risk disclosure ordinance is part of a broader city family strategy to increase flood resilience citywide, and our definition of resilience is the capacity to anticipate risk, limit impact, and recover quickly when damage occurs from flooding events. and this multipronged process includes capital projects, it includes collection system, maintenance, but it also includes a suite of programatic strategies, and this program falls into that category. i'll just start with quickly outlining what the purpose of the map is. the map identifies parcels in san francisco that are likely to be subject to flood risk in a 100-year storm? and what that does is to just

give property owners and renters useful information that they can base decisions on. we want people to be able to make informed decisions about their property and their belongings, so that is the intention of this map? of course it's also the foup foundation for the ordinance that we have before you, which is the disclosure ordinance. just really quickly, so you know what the map is based upon? we undertook a technical effort utilizing our hydrologic model which includes the 100-year design storm, and we have elevation, slope, perviousness, etc., all reflected in our hydrologic model, as well as infrastructure, pipes, structures, etc. we then combine that with a g.i.s. mapping system to make

that spatial across our city. what we did was identify areas that were deemed to be at risk of contiguous flooding in a 100-year storm event? what we mean by that is greater than 6 inches of flooding, and contiguous is deemed for this purpose to be greater than half a city block. so when you look at the 100-year flood risk map, and you see the areas in purple, that is how those -- those were defined. and you can see, not surprisingly, that these zones on the flood risk map closely coincide with our low lying areas city-wide. and in addition, they coincide with what were our historical creeks and water ways which to this day represent the low areas in our city.

you can see on our map, underlying the purple areas, we do have a light blue showing those historical water ways. just to flag, the highlighted hash lights are part of our separate stormwater systems and there were were not analyzed as part of this effort which is looking at the combined sewer. we also wanted to make sure that the public could really use this information, so we have these maps, you know, at the citywide scale, at the neighborhood scale, and then zoomable and searchable per address as you can see on this slide. so if folks want to go to sfwater.org/floodmaps, they would be able to search for any location and understand any risks inside or outside the flood zone.

>> we did want to make sure we had a lot of resources for the public. in addition, we sent out over 4,000 letters during this process so that folks who are going to be included in this map would know ahead of time, so we sent them out a letter before the map went to our commission? we have again sent out a letter after that process stating that the map would be part of this disclosure ordinance were it to pass, so we've been mailing these folks regularly and also providing frequently asked questions, and we have a direct e-mail and phone line specifically for this project that folks can use. we can do citywide outreach in a couple of different ways. we did public availability sessions, where the public could come and speak with technical staff about the map in an ad hoc manner, meaning

they would drive the conversation, ask the questions they wanted to ask in an informal setting? we also did formal presentations in five public neighborhood where people could come and listen to a for more formal presentation and ask their questions there, as well. when we went to the commission, we did acknowledge the need for a parcel review process? so we now have created that. what we understand is that all of this information is based on our -- our model, which is very, very accurate and state of the art. however, as we all know, things may differ on the ground, there may be a wall, there may be a difference in elevation, so we did want to provide a parcel review process when one or more of the following applies. if a parcel's ground elevation is entirely above the flood risk elevation and if that can

be shown or if there is a barrier on the parcel that is diverting the stormwater away from it, then those are two examples where a parcel could be removed from the flood risk map. so this slide just reflects the details of the parcel review process that we did want to share with you. i'm happy to answer more details questions, but you can see here that we do have an application and then p.u.c. staff, both hiydraulic modeler and technical folk would review that and try to understand if those two prior conditions were indeed the case. this has really been a city family effort, so i wanted to pause to thank our d.b.i. participants in this -- in this process? we had -- it kirk means originally as part of this process fb