Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Building Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SF Building Inspection Commission declines to support proposed vacant-building ordinance, asks advisory committee for alternatives
Summary
The commission voted 5-1 not to support File 090554, a proposed ordinance to register vacant or abandoned buildings, citing enforceability and overlap with planning authority; it asked the Code Advisory Committee to draft administrative procedures to address existing enforcement gaps.
The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission on a 5-1 vote declined to support a proposed vacant-building ordinance (File 090554), recommending instead that the Code Advisory Committee develop administrative procedures to enforce existing requirements and then advise the Board of Supervisors.
Director Day summarized the draft ordinance introduced by President Chu as a proposal to add Section 103A.4 to the San Francisco building code and to amend Section 110 to establish an annual registration fee, require owners to maintain vacant properties and allow the building official to declare certain vacant buildings nuisances. Day told commissioners that the Planning Commission and Historical Preservation Board had suggested modifications that, in her view, added planning conditions DBI could not practically enforce.
"If we're going to have an ordinance, it has to be enforceable," Director Day said, adding that some recommended planning conditions would be "unenforceable" by building inspectors and therefore inappropriate for the building code. She recommended forwarding an enforceable version or forwarding suggested amendments for further work.
Commissioners split on the proposal. Commissioner Walker argued the registration and modest fee would reimburse staff time and provide a proactive way to manage blight, citing recent emergency demolitions and neighborhood impacts. Several other commissioners said San Francisco's building stock, existing blight and current staff shortages made the proposed ordinance premature. "We're different from Stockton," Commissioner Levitt said, urging caution about imposing new requirements that add monitoring work to a reduced staff.
Members of the Code Advisory Committee and public commenters urged the Commission not to adopt the ordinance as written. Henry Knoelwitz, speaking for the committee, noted existing tools such as the blight and graffiti ordinances and code sections that authorize inspections and penalties, and recommended the department develop administrative procedures rather than a new ordinance. Public commenters including structural engineers and neighborhood groups warned that many apparently vacant buildings may be under planning review or demolition applications and that simultaneous enforcement could penalize property owners trying to comply.
A motion to withhold support for the current proposal and ask the Code Advisory Committee to prepare administrative recommendations passed on a roll-call vote, 5 to 1 (Commissioner Walker opposed). The Commission voted to forward that position to the Board of Supervisors.
Next steps: the Commission will transmit its position to the Board of Supervisors and requested that the Code Advisory Committee return with administrative procedures and specific recommendations for how DBI might enforce existing requirements without adding unworkable planning obligations.
