Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code Repeat Violators topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors advance amendments to ordinance targeting repeat building-code violators; item continued for further drafting
Summary
The committee heard sponsor and DBI presentations on a proposed building‑code change to track and increase scrutiny of parties with repeated serious violations, received extensive public comment raising due‑process and 'guilt by association' concerns, approved substantive amendments and continued the ordinance for redrafting and a March return.
A proposed ordinance to amend San Francisco's building code to identify and more strictly monitor repeat code violators advanced out of the Land Use and Transportation Committee on Feb. 22, with supervisors approving substantive amendments and continuing the item for additional drafting.
Amy Beinart, chief of staff to Supervisor Ronan, told the committee the legislation would create an internal tracking system for significant notices of violation and a public "expanded compliance control" list. She said the measure would trigger closer review—including site inspections, a required licensed contractor named on permits in most cases, and quarterly public reporting—when a party accrued three or more significant notices within 18 months. "The intent is to provide for expanded compliance control and consumer protections in situations where there are significant and repeated violations of our building code," Beinart said.
The Department of Building Inspection endorsed codifying its expanded quality‑control program. "The department is prepared to implement this ordinance should it pass," John Murray of DBI said.
During a lengthy public comment period, attorneys, architects, engineers and trade groups urged narrowing the ordinance to avoid penalizing consultants or subcontractors who were not responsible for violations. Land‑use attorney Ryan Patterson warned the measure risked "guilt by association" where a party "associated with" reported violations could be treated as responsible; he urged use of Director hearing procedures and clearer criteria. Several building‑trade speakers and community advocates, by contrast, supported tougher tools to address serial bad actors.
Supervisors pressed staff on checks and balances for discretionary decisions. "We are leaving it up to staff at DBI to sort of put folks on the compliance list if they meet the new expanded qualifications," one supervisor said, urging later review of how the policy is functioning. Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson told the committee the City Attorney's Office had approved the legislation "as to form," and could address legal questions about state preemption at subsequent review.
The committee agreed to strike specific language identified in the record and voted to accept the package of amendments as substantive. The amendments passed on roll call; because they were found substantive the ordinance will return after re‑printing. The committee directed staff to return the amended ordinance at the next meeting for additional consideration and formal vote.
Next steps: the amended ordinance will be refiled and brought back to committee for further action and a subsequent Board hearing according to the clerk's schedule.
