>> there might be a loophole how you would construct closing that with a proactive addition to the legislation rather than that loophole exists now that you review the video today, that is good, i can figure that out. i will buy a classic car. >> i have been delighted in my conversations with merchant groups that it shifts to how are we going to close loopholes to make sure this works the way it is to work, that is a conversation i am eager to engage in. >> with the tax collector you have to report it annually. if there is no sales or $100 for a commercial space you know is worth $10,000 per month. it is your discretion to lose

money. >> lee, thank you for bringing such an easy topic. i appreciate your patience. of course, we went to the longer issue. i did have a couple issues for you on timelines which seems to be a stumbling block for a lot of folks. no matter what time -- how much time you choose to complete a processor somebody says what about this or that? i don't know if this is plausible. one thought i had was that you could tie the various c.u. resolution process, permitting process to the after age completion time for those

permits and so this would allow for the planning department to get backed up and average turnaround time is now 14 months instead of 12 so if you said average turnaround time plus, you know, three or six months, whatever additional time you wanted to allot for those cases. it is a bell curve. the average is not reflective of the entirety. if you go to the right you should capture 95%. everything except the true edge cases, and that would be a timeline determination that was dynamic and responsive to whatever external was happening. if we had an earthquake or something like that, obviously, the average turnaround time should increase substantially because of the backlog.

that time would be baked into the legislation. i don't know how you determine the average turnaround time. maybe the planning department can easily -- i mean it seems like the data easy to obtain. that was one idea i had that may be abused. i think the other question that i had was my understanding is the d.b.i. recently administrators vacancies. are you considering having them define the vacancies within d.b.i.? is that a better fit? >> you mean determine the start and end date of the vacancy. >> in other words who is tracking this?

who is ultimately charged with determining what is and what isn't? who is enforcing it? >> yeah, i mean the short answer is d.b.i., and i think in the wake of the dustup last year about the vacant storefront registry created in 2009 and the amendments made this year, those amendments this year were designed to make d.b.i. a more proactive inspector of the commercial corridors. of course, they can still field input from members of the publ public. once you are on the vacancy registry you are inspected at regular intervals. this is something that d.b.i. feels competent to add more on the basis of the new tools that we gave them. it is that we got the buy in for making this a better process earlier this year. this is, in effect, keyed up by

the vacancy improvements we made in 2019. we hope that is going to facilitate a smooth implementation of this tax. >> do you have an estimate how many vacancies there are? >> the number quoted in the budget varied widely. it pre-dates amendments made earlier this year, whereas the united states postal service estimated nearly 3500 commercial vacancies in san francisco. that is not only ground floor, not limited to neighborhood commercial districts. >> there can be multiple d.b.i.s in the single location. >> i think it was 3300 properties and 3500 businesses so or 3500 individual spaces. there was a distinction in the budget and analyst's report.

that is all to say that 3500 number was in wild disagreement with the seven properties that were assessed a fee pursuant to the d.b.i. registry. >> how many are on the list? >> 25 or 26. i can go back to the map. >> if they were all as bad as north beach that would be 750 vacancies. >> i dispute the vacancy of north beach anything less than stellar. we are the focus of the issues around the city, i actually think that the community members like the commissioner have been going to great lengths to improve on that. >> 38 is a big number. >> which is not accurate any more. we have rented out. >> let me ask you. so 38 is a big number, and north beach is better now. if there were 35 or 40 in each

of those ncds we are talking about less than 1,000 storefronts, not 30,000 because of the postal service estimate, and not 100. it is not thousands. it is hundreds, approaching a thousand. >> about a thousand. >> because, you want to know what revenue -- how much fees if it is $711, you know, that would generate a half-million dollars per year, barely enough to hire a couple people. to go find them and to make sure they pay their fees. just putting it in perspective. >> i want to follow up. >> $1,000 per foot will certainly generate a lot more than that, right? >> i was still talking, sorry. >> commissioners, thank you,

lee, for addressing this issue in our city. if you could walk us through a little bit the logistics why it is an excess tax which requires ballot as opposed within the confines of the existing department, that would be helpful. you guys identified back before april before the amendments were in the code for d.b.i. that they were having an issue tracking vacancies. so my question is, yes, who is going to be staffing this directly? if it is in coordination with these departments, is it actually going to be increasing their capacity to do this work or adding another layer of bureaucracy to tracking store fronts just because it will be outside of the department, in

essence, as it is a tax. is it because if it was amended as a code to d.b.i. or change to the department's operation would you not be able to use it as a fund? is that part of that? can you just breakdown for me who is going to staff it? is it going to affect the current processes by being outside of it and give me a sense of that. >> as i understand it, the verification of vacancies and the tracking of vacancies is on the ground will be a fund of d.b.i.'s existing work to build up the vacant storefront registry, then the administration of the tax,

actual application to be through the treasure's tax collector's office. as we created there there was a lot of back and forth that ultimately focused on making this as as as simple as possibo implementation is easy. they want it easy and i believe that representatives from both departments would stand up to say, yes, they can do this. as to why we are going to the ballot, that is because the existing fee for registering with the vacant storefronts registry is capped by cost recovery at $711 per year. cost recovery is basic. let me put it this way. there was a conversation a year ago when we were talking about the vacant storefronts how many inspections can we layer on a vacant storefront to have more costs to recover?

we didn't change the cost recovery free from what it was in 2009, but in any event $711 is what we are capped at per year and the overwhelming consensus is that is not enough to change the behavior of the long-term vacancy bad actor property owners. that is what we are really trying to do. to that end, i want to be clear there are some taxes that are revenue generating. sales tax generates revenue we use. this is a different type of tax we would be happy to never assess. in a perfect world we don't assess this tax because there are no storefront vacancies. to the extent there are, they are all short term vacancies that don't trigger application of the tax. we have to go to the ballot because of state constitutional

law. >> i just wanted to point out about the timeline. if your type of business you want to come in with is not one of the easy, you know, retail things, the timelines can be much longer. i myself am trying to open a business in north beach, and the planner has sat on our permit already for more than six months and has never given us an indication that she will have time to look at it so i would remember certainly for the c.u. resolution process a longer period of time. it just can drag on for many years. >> i appreciate that, and i will add that there are discrete examples. say you are trying to open up a cannabis business in san francisco.

we have not figured out how to issue those in an effective manner because we are deliberate. i won't speak for the office of cannabis but i believe there are benefits to a slower rollout to make sure the equity program has integrity. that is not lost on me. that is taking longer than six months. i think part of th of this is internally. it would be the suggested amendment we are working on which would require that c.u. resolution applications in these discrete zones be processed by the planning commission within six months, be brought to hearing before the planning commission in six months. that is a reasonable ask and i am grateful aaron star is not behind me to refute that, but it is a conversation that i think

needs to happen. otherwise, it is a city-created delay penalizing a private party and that is not in the spirit of fairness. >> you are a property owner, you go i hear the cannabis is ledge geledgeget mat. it goes to the full six months, there is a big uproar, sorry, we are not going to give you that. then the cannabis person says i don't want to be unwelcome in the neighborhood, i am out. where am i. i have gone through six months by using my c.u c.u. resolution. there is another business that requires it and i am looking at the one year vacancy to see if those go to full term then the

day at day 366 i am going to pay probably if i have a 25-foot storefront, which is not very large. $25,000 for just having watched two unsuccessful ceu processes. >> whether you are . >> they are appeals processes where i am going. >> there is not right now. there could be and we have discussed it. i will make a global statement at the end of what i am about to say to talk about how to adjust this down the road, but let's say that you are bumping against 182 days store front vacancy and you have not invoked exemptions. you get an over-the-counter application to repair a window silfor the one year exception. in that time period, i suggest you pursue the c.u. resolution

before the one year of the construction exception, at the end of which you have another six months. that is not to say during that one year construction exception you are prohibited from pursuing the process. if we get our trailing amendment in here that would have to be processed within six months. there is again a provocation. the city can do this more quickly. at the same time as we are creating the hammer, we are telling the city you need to be possessing permits for ground floor commercial spaces in the commercial corridors like it is an urgent matter. we agree these are all urgent. it is incumbent upon the city to process them effectively. >> we want to be sure this is not punitive. who is responsible for

initiating the process the accident or property owner? >> generally the business own in. >> i am the property owner, i don't have control. business owner says six months. get on it, okay? i am going to take my time. i have my six months. then i get turned down. the property owner bears the brunt. they have to pay the penalty, not the business owner. the business owner is controlling the c.u. resolution process, right? >> this is the analysis of this. the lessee is jointly responsible. who ends that is subject to negotiation. whether the city unduly contributed to the delay and

issues s a refund they can refud back to the business and property owners. >> is that the motion of sharing or amendment. >> jointly and severally liable is part of it as is the potential for a refund to a business that overpaid or paid in error or wrongfully assessed. >> i have to pay a lawyer to file a lawsuit against someone who fairs the process. i am looking at paying $25,000. >> or you could lease the ground for commercial storefront soace. -- space. >> the only people at my door are cannabis, massage, restaurant, bar, convenience store to sell alcohol, name a whole bunch of businesses with

severe restrictions. sorry, where is my clothing store? they don't do that any more. where is the traditional retail which has been supplanted by amazon and the web? it is not easy out there. i am not defending the scofflaws. i am saying there are reasonable scenarios where it takes a long time, a lot more than you say it could be protracted to two and a half years. people are up against a wall. holy crap, it is six months. it happens in small business and many of the property owners are qualified as small business operators. they are not sophisticated and paying a staff of people to manage vacancies. it is a poor person who inherited a piece of property. i have to keep this rented. it is not easy to keep an

apartment rented sometimes, let alone a storefront. some kind of accommodation for you to know you get these situations where i have tried. i have had my two, three, four c.u. resolutions have fallen through. it was accepted then my business owner took a year and a half to build out the restaurant. by the way, the inspectors said the flow hood wasn't adequate. this happened with the bacon company. they were blowing smoke out the roof and all of the neighbors argued about it and they got kicked out of the space. so many things can happen in this process. it is not a single permit, it is a multitudes especially if it is complicated like a restaurant. those all could take three, six months to get through, especially with remediation work. i think, you know, we have to be

-- ushsetting some very hard deadlines and going we will work it out. there is no provision to work it out. there is no appeals process currently in the legislation. these are hard numbers. where it will come we are going to get in a situation where now we have a new class of property owners at your door, at your supervisor's door saying, dude, you are killing me. i am trying to rent my space. everything is conspiring against me to get over these six month william oefeleihurdle. none of us are arguing the intent. we all want the spaces rented or be in the process of being rented. i think it is difficult, especially now. this is not, you know, there is not a long line of people waiting to rent these places

with the traditional businesses we would love to see there, but at these rates, frankly, the ability to hire anybody. i don't have a retail store. i can't hire anybody to run it. the people in my factory own their homes, lived in san francisco for 20 years. it is the only way they can stay in san francisco and work for me. if you are here, you can stay. if you are trying to get in here, you cannot be looking for a minimum wage job. most of these retail-type scenarios that people like to recommendnis about are minimum wage jobs done by the owner-operator. most of the boutiques, the owner is behind the desk seven days each week. when they are exhausted, they stop, retire, there is no one to take over. then you have a person who owns

the property going mark finally gave up on his business. now what do i do? who will i rent to? there are no more of those people waiting in the wings. well maybe i will find a cannabis business or some new retail business, your hat business. i am just saying, you know, i think these timeframes are really going to be problematic. i don't know how to negotiate that without the supervisor feeling like he is gutting his legislation or making it ineffective and i know it is the hammer. you want to hammer down some of these nails. >> i have a thought, which is about any tax that we pass at the ballot. we can amends the ordinance in order to do things that would soften the tax.

we cannot expand the tax, we can't increase the tax or application of the tax. in the wake of something not working, there is a safety lever. the voters authorized us to 100. we can bring it down to 75, eliminate it altogether. we can sunset for a district that is experiencing a crisis for two years. we can do things like that in the wake of it. i hate to jump to that. it is helpful to know we have that safety valve. >> this is the previous question. why not use the current legislative framework. cost recovery is not effective. i get going to the ballot to give yourself a better hammer. can you change those timeframes legislatively? >> to lengthen them, yes. >> you can't raise the cap without going back to the voters, but you can lower the

cap and extend the timeframe. >> this gives us maximum authority. we will probably say that can only begin by two-thirds vote of the board of supervisors. we would like a compelling reason to pull this back. most things of the board pass unanimously when it is a really good idea. the last thing -- well maybe not last thing depending on questions. i want to characterize this one other way, which is that in as much as some of the reasons for vacancies identified by the budget and legislative analyst were speculation to obtain higher rents or higher sale prices in the future, absentee landlords waiting for a particular type of tenant. that gets me. we did this whole retail revitalization project in union square where there was a lot of

people promoting death of retail. it is a certain kind of retail. they are talking about death of brands that are so far out side of my purchase power or any of our purchase power where nobody is really shopping there. you can walk in with 40,000 to spend on the watch to get something. this is really about giving small business owners -- would be small business owners, small retailers more leverage. it is an opportunity to say, hey, that rent you are offering, look, that might be market rate for a use that exists in one place, but that is not market rate for what i am trying to do here. it gives them more negotiation in that lease dynamic to say i have a use i would like to do in here. you are bumping up against 25,000 vacancy tax, why don't i

take that off your hands and lease it. i am a new clothing retailer. i can afford this represent and you can avoid that tax. then we have a different dynamic and differently tail landscape at least in these discrete commercial transit districts. that is something interesting to watch and might bring back some of the retail that is lost. commissioner duly, i know your work, it was possible that restaurant at the corner of broadway and columbus was a more lucrative use as a restaurant, which required a c.u. resolution. through hard community work and collaboration it is now a hardware store, the first hard wear store in north beach in a long time. there is an argument this is

trying to expand the uses beyond those would renet a higher, you know, grocery seats and people to afford the higher represent. we want to revive the retail uses that haven't been able to negotiate with the speculative high rents that are offered. we know those are driving? of the vacancies. increasing the leverage of small business might have this effect. i will put that out there for thought. >> you already mentioned there is no appeal process, but then on a regular basis it would be okay. when things get complicated, i think there should be something written into the legislation to allow for exceptions. i have a case of a restaurant on

geary and proctor, and it was burned down because the contractor company to dig into the ground and there was an explosion. there is gas and fire for a long time. it burned down the restaurant that is one of my favorites. now so the restaurant owner has the lease with the landlord, and then now it is almost a year, but i think they are going to be tied up in legislation for a long time before they can get back to reopen or fix the property. how do you handle that? it is going to be more than a year? >> a lawsuit, right? >> yes, a lawsuit. i think pg&e is suing the contractor and the insurance companies are suing the pg&e. >> i think that, you know, my knowledge of litigation has

waned over the years. it might be liability there. i don't know specifics of the case. if it was rendered unusable that would invoke it is one year right now a two year natural disaster exception from the date of incident. another year to take out any building permit. that is three years. you know, i think the point is, yes, there are outside variables we can't account for. our retail commercial corridors cannot be couldlalterral damage in that process and allowing for the vacancies to continue over five years, six years, seven years, the detriment -- detriment to communities

deserves leverage to that space. if this pushes folks to settlement, maybe. if this helps allocate responsibility more appropriately to the extent the property owner was not the cause of the underlying natural disaster, but it is a third party, i think that is possible in the context of litigation. the over riding sense is there are many ways to run afoul of this. those are communities slipping into blight, burned out and not coming back. we have a duty to push folks in the right direction. >> i think you should have a process so people can go for -- not an appeal or through the process of exception or extend the period of time. >> i will bring that back to the supervisor. i believe it was something that

came up in conversation. it is worth revisiting. >> a couple questions. the tracking and administration in 2906, you have it as the ttx. wouldn't that make more sense to be the d.b.i. doing that? >> i think the a the administraf tax would be by ttx. the inspection is d.b.i. >> the timelines appears to be ttx if i am reading this right. >> right, but ttx is not going out to inspect the start and end date. d.b.i. can't to administer the tax. in reality, this is like a property tax like any other tax where interdepartmental coordination is the name of the game.

ttx is charged with administering the tax. >> you know, i think one thing you are hearing from all of us, you know, the concept we all support, i think. there is some concern about le lessees getting caught up in something that obviously nobody wants to see somebody in good faith trying to move forward, getting caught up in a fee. certainly there is concern. talk about why you decided to make it jointly and severely with the lessees and not put it with the knowledge owner? >> this is to get at the issue of to close a loophole that says that if i am the property owner, i can't lease my space to -- and

be -- if it is not activated the responsibility goes to somebody. if the lessee is not doing diligence to activate space and contributing to the delay, it sharings the responsibility there. there is a version of this in the conversation we were just having, i believe, where the lessees and the smaller cap office spaces we work. if they are not doing diligence to lease the space should we charge the building owner or the third-party not doing their part to occupy or have the space occupied? >> i think the concern just we all keep bringing up again is just concern for the lessee who is, obviously, there is a little punching down there. assuming it is an arm's length transaction, the lessee is going to have a lot less resources

typically than the building owner so i would just join my voice with everyone else with respect to the appeal process. you know, one thought is that it would be nice to include the local community or the neighbors in that appeal process because i think a lot of times it is the neighbors that know when a good faith effort is being made, you know, people get sick or there is all sorts of. it seems like there is a long list of circumstances that would be difficult to consider in advance and having a relief valve to capture those would be wise because you don't want to dump on people getting dumped on that are trying to do the right thing. they fell out for whatever reason for something we can't

foresee. the last question i had was about the small business assistance fund. this is being created by this legislation? >> that's correct. >> there is language about the administration but it doesn't say who is administering. >> so the funds will be administered through the city's administrative process the mayor and supervisors. >> i would make a recommendation that either is s.p.c. or oewd be part of that about how the funds are administered, particularly, as it seems to be directly relevant to our respective missions, and i think it would be wise to include our input as to how those funds should be distributed. one can imagine a lot of interesting things can happen if

there is sufficient funds to happen facilitate small business moving forward. i was pleased to see the scope of how the funds should be administered was not -- left open and vague. i think there is a lot of different ways that could go, but, yeah, that is it, i guess. >> just to provide information so when -- i will talk business. that is who our office assists. is that any planning process such as the 3 eleven conditional use or discretionary use a new entity occupying the space to

initiate planning they have to file for a building permit first. then after they get through their process, then they can initiate the build out and the department of building inspection or and in the situation of perhaps dph for a restaurant issues a certificate of occupancy. the current vacant storefront registry tracks through the building permit so it isn't getting muddled if it is going through a planning processor not planning but it is strictly tracking the building permit and the building permit as to whether it gets through completion. every year a property that is deemed vacant and hasn't granted

there are some properties that may not necessarily have -- spaces that may have to go through a building permit. if you are going to do electrical upgrades, you are going to full a building permit. with the current vacant and abandoned storefront property, if a property is vacant they have to register every year. that is a marker. if we are talking about tracking timelines of which a space is vacant, it should already be on the registry because the property owner has 30-days to get their property on the registry. >> how many are registered today? >> i think they are beefing that up. it is too soon to tell. ours was created in north beach. we have a similar tracking system to track the term of vacancies.

some of that data exists most are short turnarounds with the exception of a quarter of the vacancies are long-term. >> if our local community entities are tracking it, hopefully, they are calling that in so d.b.i. is tracking this. i want to point out that we have a current system that is tracking, and there is an opportunity to build on that, to build a metric to place a trigger on long-term vacancies. that is a little less complicated of not going through conditional use. it allows that tracking without getting too complicated of a business going through its process. am i making sense with this. >> why would that work if a business that requires a c.u.

resolution, they are waiting like they don't want to file with d.b.i. to do work because they are not permitted to open the business. >> just again you can't initiate a c u without a building permit first. they won't accept the application. that is the first line of being able to track something from beginning to end. if your c u process and the current vacant abandoned storefront process does take into consideration active building permits as a means of whether a space is vacant or not. i just want to make sure you are very clear on the current process that we have in place.

if there isn't any building work habbing, if there isn't -- happening. if there isn't a building permit pulled that space is vacant and d.b.i. will track. if you are year one it is registered if by year two the building permit is not pulled. d.b.i. will say file again for the vacant storefront and submit the report on the condition of your property. >> presently, getting on the registry is a self-reporting task unless someone in the neighborhood says i want to see if it is on the register so back to my previous question. how many businesses have self-reported on the registry? why did not anybody know that? >> d.b.i. knows that. one thing to do to get on the

registry is something we could do legislatively outside of this. your application for a building permit will be processed. will jump to the front of the line or be processed in the order you register for the vacant storefront registry. it will give you priority possessing if you register yourself. you know it is going to jump to the front of the line. that is to provide incentive. >> i want to note that there is already we already have in our vacant storefront initiative which you heard at the beginning of the year a means of tracking the ongoing vacancy. >> as long as they are on the registry. >> right. i don't see in here, and i would

like good specification that this tracking is actually assigned to department of building inspection. i don't see that amending the building code. right now it is all really assigned under ttx to deal with tracking. so we have two different a gene see -- agencies tracking this. i guess my question to the commission is, you know, give some consideration about how we build on our current vacancy tracking system to make those markers to then kick in a tax, right? then i would love it, lee, if by the urging of the planning department to whittle down the conditional use timeline. we have had years of

conversation around the timeline for conditional use process and it has grown. absent legislation mandating this for our ncds and ncts, it is not going to happen at this particular point in time. i don't see how it is going to happen through suggestion. i just want to point out that . >> enforcement is an issue. >> correct, and also when we think about streamlining -- let's think about building on current processes as opposed to maybe creating a duplication, but the same goal at the end is something to think about. >> really quick. following up on that, the year

period or which is potentially amended to two, would start -- would trigger when you pull the d.b.i. permit? >> that's correct. >> that is kind of the situation we are talking about. how are we not going -- how are we not going to penalize the people doing due diligence when we have no ability to, you know, to report back on that process? is that like -- i think that is what i am picking up. our office has data as well. there are several case studies where people are in the situation where they are to do the dethe due diligence and paye

fees and have gone to board of appeals. i am trying to understand how, you know, we are already seeing that without this additional fee. how are we going t going to optn account for people doing due diligence but caught up in the process. >> i am not sure i understand the question. d.b.i. and ttx have been in close collaboration and nobody thought this was redundant, what is going to happen is d.b.i. creates the vacancy registry. they are doing the inspections to implement and in the integrity of that vacancy registry. ttx isn't doing duplicattive work. they are implementing the tax based on timelines given to them

by d.b.i. the start date of this, pulling of this permit application. the ttx gets the timeline and administrators the taxes. they do in other context based on other department information. as to -- i hear you on the appeal process. i am happy to take that back to our team. that was not included because the city does not want to be in the position of discretion to make us more vulnerable. to the extent we can accommodate that flexibility in the hard timelines in there today thanks is preferable. i expect that is why there wasn't an appeal process. that said, again, the small business assistance fund is vague and could include refunds of the tax to the extent it was assessed improperly or contrary to the ordinance. it seems absurd that small

business would be paying or the property owner would pay a tax here and at the same time it is being assessed the city is saying, okay, you weren't to run afoul of that. we understand why it is not in the general benefit of small business, we will refund. that fund should be for that. that is where the discretion might exist. i am not sure about businesses getting lost in the process. >> i am saying as it is a small property owner who used to be a small business, this is something our office has come across. their business is not viable, they want to lease space. we had a space trying to do that. because of restrictions on the corridor they weren't able to find a lessee for a really long time, and they were paying their fees, which you are saying the only fees collected right now are inspection fees to recover

costs. but that was a huge hardship on them as a small property owner as it was keeping up to fire code is expenditures while they are vacant. it is already difficult for people doing du. diligence. i don't want to put hard ship on those people. if there is no appeal process how are people submitting they are actually trying? >> the current fee for staying on the vacancy registry is $711 per year. i understand how in combination with other fees that is not small. i also understand how if you are not in business and you are paying that fee, then that is a larger hardship at the end of the day. the fact it is avoidable by

activating the ground floor comesher super super super super commercial floor front -- the active commercial space, i think, you know, my sympathy starts to wane, particularly because people who fill the vacancies, particularly long-term, are adjacent businesses are neighbors, are entire communities that are seeing these places fall into blight. it is at a certain point this is holding the property owners to a higher standard and getting it together and leasing the space at a realistic rent. that is the provocation of this tax that we hope we never have to assess. >> so i know we are still -- sorry. i know we are still gathering data and trying to learn what is

happening here, but is there any sort of the data we have currently, is there any sort of frequency distribution? in other words, let me find a a coheir went way -- a way to ask the question. we are opposed to people keeping a property vacant for a decade. there is no dispute that is to be avoided at all costs. there is some concern in the six month to two to three year space, i am wondering how much of the properties that could potentially fall in this purview naturally find a tenant and, you know, don't need any additional incentives versus the ones that

eventually become the zombies, you know, occupying blocks for decades. also, i understand the need to perhaps light a fire under folks and incentivize them to move as fast as possible. i am trying to wrap my head about we know about these folks here and these folks here. is it a small dovetail down or is it lumpy? is there a sudden surge? >> pointing to the powerpoint that in this particular slide that shows the causes of vacancy, and i realize i misspelled analyst. that is embarrassing. you are talking about normal turnover, the top one. how many are normal turnover? going out on a limb because i

don't recall all of the data about the north beach neighborhood commercial survey. vast majority is normal, not long-term vacancies. we are not trying to address all of these. normal turnover is not a problem. that is a natural occurs, business goes out of business and you try to find a new tenants. we are in a position to solve these. city regulations and zoning are at the core. we have tools to consider currently. this tax would address these other four bolded in red categories. in north beach, that is about eight of the 38 vacant storefronts, that is one fifth. >> where my question is going. i am listening to how much concern folks have about the woulwouldwobblers.

could it not be if there is a sub set that is clearly and easily definable, couldn't extending the timelines extend it and capture a lot of other folks in good faith moving forward but not capturing them unintentionally? >> right, and i guess the concern. the way we have sketched out the hypotheticals and seen how the existing draft without extending these periods of providing additional flexibilities you get at least two years in some instances three years and five months worth of vacant forefront under the drafting of the tax. that is a lot of time and to the extent that we increase, how long did it take to get through the city process?

in some ways i want to improve and shorten that timeline. the perception on the street how long a vacancy is, two and a half or three years is a long term vacancy in our neighborhood commercial corridors and really by making this more flexible what we are telling the sub set of bad actors is that, you know, here is another way to get another year. here is another way to get another two years. it is a system for so long already that i am hesitant to give them any more. >> i know you are far along in the process, but, you know, it seems to me that it could be, you know, you could do a simpler longer term with less sort of got to get the construction thing in this sequence and that

order and understand how the pieces go together. i am wondering if there isn't a path to describe this in a much simpler method to give them more time and ensure the bad actors would perhaps benefit but by making it more coherent, you would turn what is -- obviously we are struggling to wrap our head around be how all of these different pieces go together. i can't imagine when somebody without the benefit of being able to ask you in person about what should i do here or there? creating too many decisions, i wonder if it could benefit from simplifying that and maybe making it more easier for everyone to understand. >> maybe this means giving them a little more time but also closing down some of these

stores that the bad actors would like to utilize? >> what if we made a commercial tax that kicks in at two years. no exemptions, flat tax. the idea with building in the exemptions is to encourage folks to do the right thing, to rehabilitate the space after a natural disaster. i hear you. >> i think to the point of what they said, there is a way to plainly do it. one possible way is tieing it to the registry. if you are on the registry a second year, that means you haven't actively tried to engage leasing your space to get a tenant in. i just want to sort of again while i have some very strong

reservations about tieing to conditional use and timing it to a period to complete your building, what will happen -- i am thinking about the small businesses. what i will see if as it is developed we will now need to advise every single business we interface with -- and this is an equity issue. they need to have $25,000 of startup capital and set that aside, and if they go through it and they owe the vacancy tax before because they didn't get through the conditional use processor their timeline was whatever, they are not going to be issued the certificate of occupancy until that tax is paid. i think -- i mean i think there

is a way to get to it, but i think it needs more detailed analysis of our bureaucratic process so we don't inadvertently capture our small businesses who are trying to get businesses open and are being held hostage by our bureaucracy. i think d.b.i. has the, you know, i think there is a way to get to it, and you may not be able to sort of fully solve that but for us to work with the supervisor's office because i think there is sort of some good seems to be general consensus for the property owners who are not trying to do anything, the city has waited long enough and has been, you know, the city has waited long enough and been patient