Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Land use advocates and a commissioner urge joint review after unpermitted demolitions
Summary
Speakers at the Building Inspection Commission meeting pressed DBI and the Planning Department over multiple unpermitted demolitions, called for a DBI ombudsman and urged a joint Planning–Building Commission session to review high-profile cases and propose remedies.
Public commenters and a commissioner at the Sept. 18 Building Inspection Commission meeting pressed city agencies to address a string of unpermitted demolitions and gaps in enforcement.
Jerry Dretler of the San Francisco Land Use Coalition said the city had “failed to enforce the building and planning codes” in reference to multiple unpermitted demolitions, including a project he cited on First Street. He urged the Planning Commission and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to ‘‘examine both projects from a clinical perspective and ask at what point should there have been a major intervention,’’ and said he supports a proposed DBI ombudsman to help resolve such issues.
Commissioner Watson reiterated concerns about systemic failures in permitting and inspection processes, saying the cases involved serial permitting and work beyond the scope of permits that ‘‘our systems did not prevent or detect at the earliest possible time.’’ Watson recommended scheduling a joint Planning and Building Commission meeting to review major cases and to identify targeted remedies and monitoring steps.
Speaker comments cited specific cases discussed at an Aug. 29 Planning Commission hearing and recommended clarifying demolition definitions and expanding ‘‘soundness studies’’ so that viable, relatively affordable housing can be preserved rather than demolished without adequate review.
The commission did not adopt a formal action at the meeting to launch the joint review; Watson asked that such a joint meeting be set at the earliest possible date. Commissioners and staff acknowledged the concern and indicated follow-up discussions with planning colleagues and supervisors were planned.
