Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Relocation Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building Inspection Commission upholds DBI relocation determination for 938–940 Hampshire St.
Summary
The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission unanimously upheld DBI—s April 24, 2015 determination requiring emergency relocation payments and utility-deposit returns for occupants of 938–940 Hampshire St., while noting disputed details about the number of occupied rooms and asking parties for a clear accounting.
The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission on July 15 unanimously voted to uphold the Department of Building Inspection—s April 24, 2015 notice of determination ordering emergency relocation payments and utility-deposit returns for occupants of 938–940 Hampshire Street.
DBI—s Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque told the commission the notice was drafted using state legal provisions and Department counsel, and that state law permits the enforcing agency to determine unit counts based on how the building was being used at the time of inspection. "The state law does not require that a local ordinance be adopted to implement it," Bosque said, defending DBI—s process and the department—s timeliness.
Counsel for Working Dirt LLC, the property owner appealing the determination, said the owner has paid "more than $30,000 in relocation payments pursuant to the Department's order" but disputed DBI—s unit count and parts of the process. The owner—s representative argued the department did not make an explicit finding on causation and said the initial set of checks issued by the landlord had been stopped and later replaced, producing confusion about who received funds.
Tenant attorney Lisa (identified in the record as the tenants— counsel) emphasized the tenants— separate-payments model for bedrooms and said some tenants did not receive replacement funds after checks were cancelled and recut. Tenant speakers described being split up into different SROs, difficulty finding housing, and at least one person who slept in a car after displacement. "Each bedroom provided separate rent payment to landlords," one tenant said, urging the commission to ensure tenants receive the relocation benefits they are owed.
Commissioners debated whether the dispute concerned an asserted 2 lawful units versus 12 occupied rooms or the narrower question of 11 versus 12 occupied rooms (DBI—s written determination treats the spaces as residential units based on inspection of the actual use). Commissioner Walker said testimony led him to "support the director—s action in determining that there were 12 occupied units," citing separate rent payments and built partitions observed by inspectors.
The commission—s motion to uphold the Director—s April 24 determination included a request that the property owner and tenant representatives provide a clear accounting of what remains unpaid. Commissioners also directed staff and legal counsel to draft written findings explaining the decision for adoption at the next meeting.
The vote to uphold the determination was unanimous. The commission recorded a roll-call yes from President McCarthy, Vice President (recorded in the transcript as) Moore/Marr, Commissioner Lee, Commissioner McCray, Commissioner Melgar, Commissioner Walker and Commissioner Clinch.
The commission—s action upholds DBI—s emergency relocation fee assessment and the department—s calculation of utility-deposit returns; the parties will provide detailed accountings and the commission will adopt written findings at a later meeting.
