Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 16, 2011 11:30am-12:00pm PDT

11:30 am
announcements? >> item 3. update on vacant buildings/ blight issue. >> good morning, president, commissioners. john henson, acting director of code enforcement. i want to thank you for your opening remarks. i must insist we are only as good as the fine building inspection support staff we have. this was put on by questions from members at the last hearing. the questions related to the vacant amendment buildings.
11:31 am
this is a new ordinance that was subject to a building code, as a result of the board of supervisors. the effective date was september 2009. code section 103.4. this ordinance requires annual registration, a registration fee to be paid [inaudible] before you you have a packet listing 427 active addresses. of those, 291 have paid and registered their buildings. the balance are in different stages of the code enforcement process. keep in mind, over the past two
11:32 am
years or so, there were 300 other buildings that were evaluated. the owners responded and provided us with industry documents and information. they were declared as not needed to be on the active list. commissioner murphy: what is the annual fee for that? >> $765. that involves the registration form, ownership, other information, other requirements for the building. commissioner murphy: so it is the same fee as a single-family house, as in multiple units? >> yes.
11:33 am
now, if you look at any active address on the list, it does not give an indication of the amount of staff time involved in any of those entries. when a particular address comes to our attention, we do a quick evaluation and then send out a letter with all of the criteria involved in registering the building. we give it a timeline. if no action is taken, they get a second courtesy letter. after that time line expires, our building inspector goes into the field, and if appropriate, will issue a notice of violation. then in the process, if nothing happens, it is scheduled for a hearing. if all of those actions are
11:34 am
taken, we have one of our support staff full-time entering those actions and updating the list on a regular basis. the list before you was from two days ago. that has changed since then. that is the general overview. happy to take any questions you might have appeare. >> i have a question about the novs. i assume these are one that our department sends out? >> yes, if they have not responded to the instructions and registered, a zero standard notice of violation is issued. >> what are they in violation of when you send it out? >> they are in violation of the
11:35 am
ordinance -- >> ok, i understand. it is just that they are required to register. >> in the legislation, there is a whole other list of criteria that talk about the requirements for normal building code. keeping the building watertight, numerous other things. even though they are not directly referred to, the fact that they are not registering the building, it is opening up those possibilities. so you could have a situation where you have an address, but we do not stop there. we would go on an issue additional violations for broken windows, unsafe conditions. commissioner lee: so those will
11:36 am
follow after? >> after were possibly during. there are so many addresses involved, there are always more issues to be dealt with then time permits. --aft after or possibly during. once we go through the list, we can do further scrutiny on particular addresses. commissioner lee: is there any collaboration with other departments, maybe dpw, the department of health, where there might be excessive dumping of garbage in some of the abandoned buildings, so that it does not fall just on our department? >> we are starting to see more
11:37 am
of that. initial concerns are brought to us about vacant buildings. as a result of dealing with that, there would be a need for a referral to another department. >> good morning. dbi deputy director. we get a lot of board supervisor inquiry about this. lately, we have been getting a lot of the hunters point bayview area -- complaints coming before you. that seems to be, more or less, the hot area. just this week, we had a board of supervisors inquiry at manna church. over the course of the month, we have referred a couple of cases to the city attorney. we expect to make a few cases. dpw, ourselves, we do work together -- for instance, a lot
11:38 am
of this is carried over to the blight ordinance. dpw carries most of the water. they are responsible, certainly, for graffiti, responsible for a vacant lots that are overgrown. garbage on the sidewalk. i would say probably the biggest crossover and confusion is the private buildings in san francisco. on waller street, the biggest issue was homeless teenagers sleeping and leaving garbage. the complaint came to us to do something about it. we went out there and had two notices of violation that we had written over the last couple of years and we followed up on that. that will be scheduled for a director's hearing. like john said, there are a lot of addresses. a lot of the addresses on their
11:39 am
have come off. to be honest with you, these are all buildings that are in some state of distress. we are dealing with owners that do not have the financial resources or expertise to deal with them. we do our best with them. we give them time and work with them. when there are a lot of complaints from neighbors, they seem to get more of the attention. commissioner murphy: i think you may have covered it, but i did not understand. what is the policy for buildings with a lot of graffiti? >> that is under the blight ordinance. dpw, that is their purview. there was an ordinance six months prior to the vacant building -- i forget the supervisor -- i think it was mirkarimi.
11:40 am
when that ordinance was written, dpw was the lead agency for graffiti blight. we are more in a supporting role. we would be more like the broken windows. commissioner murphy: how about overgrown vacant lots? >> it is in our housing code. we can certainly address it. but the lead agency is usually dpw. we could get health involved in it, if it was deemed to be a health hazard. commissioner murphy: so the complaint would come into you, to dbi first? >> generally, yes, it would start at the third floor as a routine complaint. then it would be routed to the
11:41 am
sixth floor, to the building inspector we have assigned to that particular task. >> because we have had a wet spring, through june, i am sure the growth of that, especially on lots that are vulnerable, especially this summer, to brush fires. we normally think about that as outside of san francisco, but is that a possibility, where there might be a higher category of keeping an eye out for these large lots, open lots with weed growth that will ultimately become fire material by the end of summer? >> what comes to mind is alemany housing projects.
11:42 am
it seemed to be a lot of grass fires. you might see something like that in hunters point, around the middle point. if that acreage is not taking care of, certainly, can be a fire danger. the fire department is looking at that. most of that is publicly-owned land, so that would not be in our per view. dpw, fire department, health. commissioner mar: on the list of designations, what does oa stand for? >> order of abatement? we have gone through the abatement process, notice of violation, or we sent a letter out, no action. we gave a reasonable amount of time and then a second notice of
11:43 am
violation. then we set up what is called a director's hearing. what i find for a lot of these owners, they do not show up. sometimes, they are elderly, sometimes they are out of town. we send a letter to where the tax bill is sent, and oftentimes they do not pick up their mail. commissioner mar: if the second part is a registered paid, and there is an oa next to other things, is that another violation? >> from a previous year.
11:44 am
commissioner hechanova: any more questions? thank you. >> is there any public comment on item 3? >> good morning, commissioners. my name is nancy. i live next door to a vacant building that was vacant for 28 months. it was vacated november 2008 before the ordinance went into affect. it was finally registered in may 2010. the owners return to a property in march 2011. i want to give you some background of the problems i experienced with the implementation of this ordinance. i experienced all the issues of blight that this ordinance
11:45 am
addresses, but the code was not enforced. repeated attempts to have the law enforced resulted in nothing. this is a good neighborhood and did not attract the people that would have normally come in. when the police were summoned to shut the doors and inspect the property, there was no posted notice so they could not contact the owner because the sign posting requirement of the ordinance had not been respected. so the current name, address, owner of record, authorized agent, was not noticeable. there was also a notice of default on the property. the lender's name, telephone, and address was also to be made available.
11:46 am
none of that was. if i could get the overhead, i would like to show you some information i have. i would like to mention that the property was not maintained, windows were out. skylights were broken. security was nonexistent. i am concerned about the fact, though there were many reports, the inspectors did not come in deed, come and see these things, nor did they repair them or cite them. i am particularly interested to bring to your attention the fact that there was a complaint that talked about the building not being approved, windows open, skylight broken, and their rear
11:47 am
patio sliding door was unglazed. however, a property owner came and said that the property was listed as a vacant. how can a door that is missing glass, admitting people, vermin and water not be relevant? i just leave you with the thought, from my point of view, i am not sure that this program is being properly implemented. the significance of having a broken window, such as this -- i am not sure how this is being -- here we go. however a broken window can be allowed to be left in the walkway. clearly, it fell off the building. the building is not protected from the rain. there are lots of examples of this. this is just a single family
11:48 am
dwelling. i want to make sure you understand, this is what this ordinance was meant to protect. a simple home with simple repairs and even a piece of plywood was not a fixed. the inspectors must especially get sign posting. they must look at means of the property and must deal with security. just try the not. if it works, we have a security problem. there should be additional action taken. i hope there will be an improvement in how this is addressed at the inspection level. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is joe butler, an architect in the city. part of the problem with a vacant building ordinance, when
11:49 am
people come to dbi to file a complaint about a vacant building, whether or not it is registered, open to the weather, weather is being squatted, there is no formal intake for a complaint. i fill out a form and hand it to someone and lease. it does not go into a system, no computer record. how can that be? three weeks later you come back and nothing happens. well, nothing is in the record. of course, nothing has happened. nothing is in the record, but i handed in a complaint. when? what day? where did it go? it is not my job once i hand it in. i have a copy but how do they know that the copy was something that was handed in? at the bare minimum, you need to
11:50 am
look at this process from the start. how does a member of the public register a complaint about a vacant building? how does a member of the public register a complaint about any building? how does that get into the computer system? is it by and intake clark, were senior staff? if it is by senior staff, it does not happen. it is done by an intake clerk, that as part of their job. then you would not wait -- need to wait for senior staff. ok? let us have a process that is transparent. every complaint that comes in is treated similarly. the complaint was made on the larkin street. it went through two nov's, and the building is weathertight. it is not pretty, but it is vacant. 2514 23rd.
11:51 am
that is in various states of disrepair, illegal construction without a permit. open to whether probably still. two buildings, same city, same department, unequal treatment. commissioner hechanova: mr. butler, was there a tracking number when you filed the complaint? >> no, none are given. there is no process. complaints should be given numbers, just as permits are given numbers. then you can ask, what has happened to complaint number -- whatever the date may be. what happened? it is in the system, it is being sent to this person. as it is, no record. commissioner hechanova: thank you. mr. murphy? commissioner murphy: this
11:52 am
ordinance, since it started, this one department has done a pretty good job, spearheaded by john. looking at this, you did a great job. sure, there might be a few kinks that need to be worked out, but you are certainly on the right track. commissioner lee: with the department like to answer back on how the public can report these vacant buildings? >> first of all, starting this week, you can go online. i do not believe you will get a number. how it happens -- you can go on line and make a complaint
11:53 am
starting this week. the process prior to this was either by mail, phone, or coming to the front counter. it is a vacant building, it would be taken and put into a box. there is a senior building inspector that is assigned to that box and he prioritizes it. a complaint like that would go to the sixth floor. it would need to be transported up there. but by the end of the close of business or within a few hours, there is a number given. once the number is given, it is then routed to the district building inspector. if it has permits on it. if it has no permits, it is issued to a specific building inspector for investigation. if it is a vacant building, it
11:54 am
is brought up to the sixth floor, and the process starts there. but a number is given. on 23rd avenue, there have been multiple notices of violation. the first time i knew about the building, i was brought out there as a request for emergency demolition. i turned it down. since then, there has been a great deal of to permit activity, a great deal of complaints. we have been out there 15, 20 times. it is a typical relationship between the two neighbors. we are doing our best. in regards to 1601 larkin, i find it ironic. the owner of the property said he was not treated fairly. i believe there is a lawsuit against the city stating that. i guess it depends on which side of this question you will look on.
11:55 am
any questions? commissioner lee: can the public report any abandoned buildings to 311? when they take the call? >> yes, they would. it may slow you down because it is another step. i would suggest that they call directly. somebody can come to the front counter and aske for a number, but you may have to wait. a clerk has to enter it. it is possible that you stay and say, it is very important to me, i need a number. commissioner murphy: so essentially you have the system in place? >> no system is perfect. commissioner murphy: i understand, but it is there? >> yes, it is there.
11:56 am
>> seeing no further comments. item 4. public comment: the bic will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> good morning, commissioners. neighborhood san francisco coalition for responsible growth. i have a client who just had a building permit issued for changing their rules profile and some material reconfiguring. when he called to find out how much the permit was, he was told it would cost another $3,000 to get the permit issued. i said, go to dbi and see if you can get it revalued. i am sure they will be reasonable. i just want to read an e-mail that i got from him. he said it went down to $144,000
11:57 am
from $208,000. that was based on dbi numbers per square foot. renovating two bathrooms and one kitchen. also, he could not have been nicer. everyone was great yesterday. total permits for the project came to about seven dozen $800. that is still at least two to three times more than any other city i have ever renovated in. new york, a minneapolis, boston, los angeles. so i just wanted to report back to you. i am pleased to hear that we have david at dbi who will reevaluate these projects. this is the second time this has come to my attention. once again, thank you.
11:58 am
>> good morning, commissioners. president of san francisco. before the clock begins, i would like to clarify how much time is a lot for public comment. three minutes, unlike the two that i was allowed last time. thank you. ok, unfortunately, this format required that i avoid any noises. you gave her a $50,000 raise not including any bonuses your order for doing such a good job. unfortunately, she exhibited willful neglect to the department of building inspection. this is manifested itself in nearly completely lack of direction in staff as director.
11:59 am
the magnitude of this bill is now reach a point where the department is beyond crisis. without direction, the department has devolved into a state of confusion that is truly monumental. this monumental confusion creates huge cost for customers and the department itself. i must remind you this is a public agency in charge of public safety. public safety is clearly being compromised by allowing this day to be in her position. i have required directives before. i can only assume there are no directives for staff to be produced in her defense. ms. day is therefore charged with misconduct and should be taken away from her position. if you do not dismiss her, it will be a civic obligation failure.