Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and architects tell DBI enforcement gaps persist under vacant-building ordinance
Summary
Public commenters and architects told the Building Inspection Commission that the vacant/abandoned buildings ordinance is poorly implemented, citing long delays, missing intake tracking and unsecured properties; DBI staff described the registration, NOV and abatement process and said many cases are referred to the city attorney for litigation.
Public commenters detailed failures in implementation of San Francisco’s vacant and abandoned buildings ordinance while department staff described enforcement steps and limitations.
Several speakers told the Building Inspection Commission on June 15 that the ordinance is not producing timely results for neighbors. “The property was not maintained,” said Nancy Werfel, who told commissioners she lives next door to a home that sat vacant for 28 months and said inspectors did not post required signposting with owner or lender contact information. Werfel said windows and skylights were broken and plywood was not affixed, and that an inspector told her some missing glazing was “not relevant” after the property was registered.
Architect Joe Butler urged a formal, trackable intake for complaints, saying paperwork is handed to DBI staff but frequently not entered into a computer record: “Complaints should be given numbers like permits are given numbers,” he said. Butler and other speakers described repeated site visits that produced NOVs but little follow-up, and asked for transparent complaint tracking so the public can check status.
Deputy Acting Senior Building Inspector John Hinchon reviewed the ordinance’s basic mechanics: he said the ordinance (effective September 2009; referenced in the hearing as code section “1 0 3 a 0.4”) requires annual registration, a registration fee (stated in the meeting as $765) and maintenance obligations for vacant properties. Hinchon said the packet before the commission listed 427 active addresses, of which 291 had registered and paid; the remainder were at different stages of code enforcement.
Ed Sweeney, DBI deputy director, said the department prioritizes complaints and refers complex or persistent cases to the city attorney and the litigation committee. He said hotspots lately include Hunters Point/Bayview and an abandoned church on Waller Street, and that over the past 18 months DBI has referred multiple cases to the city attorney for prosecution.
Commissioners and staff discussed the practicalities of enforcement: after initial letters and notices, DBI can issue a first and second NOV and schedule a director’s hearing; an Order of Abatement (OA) reflects that abatement steps have been pursued. Sweeney acknowledged that many addresses move through staged steps and that neighborhood complaints draw more rapid attention.
The commission did not take formal legislative action on the ordinance at the hearing. Commissioners asked DBI to prepare follow-up materials and data — including complaint volumes and a short history of liened/collected costs — so the commission can consider whether further policy or code changes are needed.
The commission moved next to other agenda items after public comment and the presentation.
