Unlawful Demolition Committee
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)
UNLAWFUL DEMOLITION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, April 17, 2001 at 3:00 p.m.
ADOPTED MAY 14, 2001
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
MINUTES
Secretary Ann Aherne called the meeting of the Building Inspection Commission Unlawful Demolition Committee to order at 3:15 p.m.
1. Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bobbie Sue Hood, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner
Debra Walker, Commissioner
Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:
Amy Lee, Assistant Director
Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director
William Wong, Deputy Director
2. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair of the Unlawful Demolition Committee.
Secretary Ann Aherne asked for a nomination for Chairperson. Commissioner Debra Walker said that she believed that Commissioner Hood had served as prior Chair of the Committee. Commissioner Hood stated that she had never been on this particular Committee before. Commissioner Walker nominated Commissioner Hood as Chairperson and Commissioner Santos seconded the nomination. The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC 024-01
Secretary Ann Aherne asked for a nomination for Vice-Chairperson. Commissioner Hood nominated Commissioner Walker for Vice-Chairperson and Commissioner Santos seconded the nomination. The nomination carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC 025-01
There was no public comment on Item #2.
3. Brief History of Unlawful Demolition Committee. (Building Code Section 103.3 and 318.1) [Deputy Director William Wong]
The secretary called on Deputy Director William Wong to report on this item.
Deputy Director Wong greeted the Commissioners and proceeded with his report.
Deputy Director Wong said that on February 21, 2001 the Department provided the full Commission with a 137- page report for the purpose of providing a historical background on the subject of unlawful demolition. For the benefit of the new Commissioners and for the general public, Deputy Director Wong said that he thought it would be useful to quickly walk everyone through this document to highlight the salient features of each of the exhibits. Director Wong stated that there were additional copies of the report available for the public.
Deputy Director Wong said that in researching the records, the Department learned that in the 1980's the City was concerned about widespread demolition of sound single and two family residential buildings to provide sites for higher density residential buildings resulting in development that did not respect the scale and character of adjacent and nearby property.
Deputy Director Wong reported that this in turn prompted the City Planning Commission to adopt "interim controls in the Richmond and Sunset districts" in September of 1987. Immediately after this action, the Board of Supervisors passed resolutions, one in December of 1987 and one the following year in February of 1988 to impose interim zoning controls to prohibit demolition or major alteration of single-family residential buildings throughout the City and two-unit residential buildings in certain districts.
Deputy Director Wong continued by saying that in February of 1988, the Board of Supervisor passed Ordinance 120-88, which effectively amended the Building Code by adding section 318.1 titled "Restrictions of Unlawful Residential Demolition Replacement". Deputy Director Wong stated that a copy of this code section was reproduced in Exhibit A, page 3 of the report. Section 318.1 was then renumbered as section 103.3 due to the adoption of the new code in 1998. Deputy Director Wong said that Section 103.3 was reproduced on page 1 of the report. Deputy Director Wong noted that there has been no change in the text--only the code section numbers have changed. Therefore, for the past 13 years, this Code Section has remained in its original language.
Deputy Director Wong pointed out the features of 103.3 stating that
It applies only to residential buildings.
It includes a definition of "Demolition" and Deputy Director Wong noted that there is no other definition for "demolition" anywhere else in Building Code; this is the only place it occurs.
Establishes a Director's Hearing and notification for such a hearing.
Provides for assessment of code enforcement costs, civil penalties and the 5-year replacement restriction.
Deputy Director Wong then went on to EXHIBIT C, the March 1996 Board of Permit Appeals letter to both Planning and Building Inspection Commissions. Deputy Director Wong said that after having heard a few unlawful demolition cases, they expressed concern about enforcement of this section. Deputy Director Wong quoted from the following from the letter, "The Board has not seen fit to impose such a penalty for fear that the lots will remain vacant for five years, creating a security problem and an eyesore for the neighborhood." Deputy Director Wong said that the Board at that time recommended that both commissions come up with some guidelines. President Hood of BIC responded back and advised that the Department was working on a bulletin to address problems of enforcing this code section.
Deputy Director Wong said that EXHIBIT D was the OPP DRAFT DATED MAY 6, 1996
Deputy Director Wong stated that DBI attempted to define "Principal Portion" because this presented the most problems. While the code defined the "interior elements" at 2/3 or more, it did not define the "exterior elements". This bulletin attempted to define the exterior as 2/3 or more to trigger the following:
Required separate plans showing existing elements, elements to be demolished and new elements.
Required Form 6 demolition application when the 2/3 mark is triggered. Deputy Director Wong stated that under the current procedure and policy the only time a Form 6 demolition application is required is when the entire structure is demolished; if it is not totally demolished then the application can be applied for under Form 3/8 which is an alteration permit.
Required written approval for any field changes. Deputy Director said that if dry rot was found out in the field then the application would have to go through a higher level of review to make sure that the dry rot was not going to cause it to go past the 2/3 mark and require the demolition permit. Deputy Director Wong stated that there is form that has to be filled out that the plan checker and field personnel sign off on and requires a higher level of review and is submitted to the Director.
Status: Suspended because of a court challenge.
Deputy Director Wong referred to EXHIBIT F which came out 16 months later in September 1997 when there was a second attempt to write a bulletin; this bulletin went into more detail about "Principal Portion".
Deputy Director Wong said that the full BIC created an Unlawful Demolition Committee at that time; Commissioners Freeman, Vasquez and Tsang were the Committee members. Deputy Director Wong said that the Committee held three meetings that generated a lot of public input.
Deputy Director Wong stated that the first meeting was held on November 13, 1997 and the minutes of that meeting were Exhibit I; the second meeting was on December 9, 1997 with the minutes being Exhibit K and the third and last meeting was held on August 4, 1998 with those minutes being Exhibit O.
Deputy Director Wong listed the accomplishments of the Committee at that time:
1. Listened to public concerns (as recorded in the minutes)
2. Looked at case studies (DBI reports Exhibit J, L, P).
3. Did telephone survey of other jurisdictions (Exhibit R) Responses varied.
4. Developed a list of common questions and answers (starting on page 84 of report)
Commissioner Hood asked if all of the information gathered by the previous Committee was going to be made available to this present Committee. Deputy Director Wong said that all of the information was included in his report.
Deputy Director Wong passed out copies of the three permit applications that are used in the Department. The first one is a pink form that is labeled as Form 3/8 and is used for additions, alterations and repairs. Deputy Director Wong said that this is the form that creates the problem if it should run into the area of being an unlawful demolition. Deputy Director Wong referred to the next two permit applications; a white Form ½, which is an application for a new building structure; and the yellow Form 6, is for a whole structure demolition. Deputy Director Wong said that the gray area occurs when the 2/3 comes in and how is this triggered when there is not a complete building demolition. Deputy Director Wong said that each of the permit applications carry certain notification requirements; if a substantial alteration were done under Form 3/8, at the time of permit issuance, the Department would notify only the properties adjoining the particular lot, but if a Form 6 demolition permit is filed then there are two notifications. Deputy Director Wong stated that one notification is sent at the beginning, at the time of permit filing when properties within a 300-foot radius are notified and again at the time when the permit is issued.
Deputy Director Wong reported that after 9 months of work, the Committee concluded, "there was general agreement that the provisions of the ordinance regulating unlawful residential demolition can not be interpreted consistently. There was also a general sentiment that this ordinance should not be in the Building Code. The Committee voted to create a "Task Force" to come up with clarifications on the code language. The "Task Force" needed to be inclusive and should involve the neighborhoods, the design community and all interested parties."
Deputy Director Wong referred to other documents that he stated he felt were important. Deputy Director Wong referred to Exhibit N, the minutes of the joint meeting that was held between the City Planning Commission and the Building Inspection Commission on May 28, 1998. Deputy Director Wong said that during the public comment portion of that meeting there were some comments with respect to enforcing the Code provision for unlawful demolition. Deputy Director Wong said that at that time it was brought up by concerned citizens, but was not discussed in detail, but stated that he wanted this Committee to know that there was a joint meeting. Deputy Director Wong referred to Exhibit S as the Department's attempt to revise the Code language to clarify the definitions and some of the other language in Section 103.3; the amendments were not substantial, but were minor revisions to clear some of the issues of the public. Deputy Director Wong said that unfortunately this particular document did not get approved and was heavily objected to during the Board of Supervisors hearings on the Code review cycle and therefore, at this point, the original language that was drafted over thirteen years ago still remains. Deputy Director Wong said that presently, late last year, the Building Inspection Commission again heard neighborhood concerns about several cases and decided to reconvene the Committee. Deputy Director Wong said that his report brought the Commission up to date on what has gone on previously and stated that he hoped his report had been useful in providing a starting point for the new Committee.
Commissioner Hood said that the report was extremely useful and thanked Deputy Director Wong for his synopsis of what has been a really torturous process which has so frequently ended up with more listings of the issues involved and the problem in both interpretation and enforcement, but which have not led to any significant improvement in the enormous stress that people experience when a building is removed. Commissioner Hood said that in the past she has avoided serving on anything that involved demolition because it looked like an endless task with no possibility of success, but stated that she thinks there is a solution to it. Commissioner Hood said that her reason for wanting to be on this Committee was to identify what this legislation needs to cover in order to be successful. Commissioner Hood said that she was an architect and very interested in the preservation of neighborhood fabric and the ability to repair buildings that are historically valuable, but are just rotten; Commissioner Walker represented the neighborhood and their needs and frustrations and Commissioner Santos who is a structural engineer is also concerned with the safety factor in the need for reconstruction. Commissioner Hood said that she hoped that the Committee members would represent those viewpoints and looked forward to having other people testify as well. Commissioner Walker said that recently at almost every Commission meeting projects come before the Commission dealing with the appearance of unlawful demolition and said that she was one of the Commissioners that encouraged having hearings about these issues. Commissioner Walker said that in looking at the wealth of information as to what has gone on before, this is a good thing and a bad thing, because the Commission has been at this point before and nothing has happened. Commissioner Walker asked Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian what specifically was the legal issue that was brought up with the proposal that seems to be at least going in the right direction in providing some definition. Commissioner Hood asked what page Commissioner Walker was referring to. Commissioner Walker said that the actual language was on page 10, the suspension of office policy where there a proposal to try and help the Department define what that ambiguous principal portion was and set forth some sort of policy internally. Commissioner Walker said that this was challenged in court. Ms. Boyajian said that it was part of a case; the case itself concerned a particular project in Glen Park where the Board of Appeals upheld the Department's decision that it was not an unlawful demolition and that decision was challenged. Ms. Boyajian said that as part of the case Citizen Review, which was the plaintiff, challenged the policy that the Department had just distributed. Ms. Boyajian said that this was a number of years ago, but her recollection was that one of the allegations was that there was no room to interpret principal portions. Commissioner Walker asked if this was just by the word itself. Ms. Boyajian said that the legislation defined principal portions and therefore the Department was not able to further define 2/3 or more. Commissioner Walker said that in looking at this she sees two issues, one is that the Committee needs to work on an agreement as to what principal portion means and as well, to actually work on the Department's procedure as indicated as the not sufficient permit things. Commissioner Walker said that if a Form 6, application for demolition, is only issued when it is determined that there is a 2/3 or principal portion demolition, it seemed to her the issues that the Commission has heard about would not have this permit. Commissioner Walker said that maybe there needs to be a process where every application is reviewed separately as to how much demolition occurs and that there be some sort of forming, plan checking and inspection to make sure that this is followed. Commissioner Hood said that the Committee could deal with exactly what was going to be done under the agenda item for future meetings and agendas. Commissioner Hood said that she thought that there were other issues and that is why this has not been solved, but the Committee could deal with that later. Assistant Director Lee said that the Committee could formulate and gather information in terms of public comments and community input, and past case studies and determine what the main issues are. Commissioner Santos said that it was important to note that there is a structural engineer on this Committee and in numerous occasions when he does an investigation as part of a remodeling job, he does encounter in the field a series of conditions and situations where structurally it is imperative to make replacement of things that are found to be deficient. Commissioner Santos said that obviously the Department wants to maintain the architectural integrity and planning has approved, but in some cases this cannot be done as elements that are not structurally sound cannot be covered, concealed or hidden. Commissioner Santos said that sometimes the builder might be forced to apply for a separate permit every time that they encounter these situations. Commissioner Santos said that he was only speaking about structural problems, not adding another story to strengthen a building, but strictly individual items that are not discovered until a construction project is started. Commissioner Santos said that as a structural engineer he wants to make sure that whatever architectural or historical significance is to be preserved, since San Francisco is a seismic area where earthquakes occur quite frequently, he wants to make sure that structurally projects only keep what is sound.
Commissioner Hood asked for public comment on Item #3. Commissioner Hood said that she knew there were many people who were present to speak, but asked that the public restrict their remarks to this one item, as they would have an opportunity to speak about general things under Item #4, public comment.
Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that she felt that one of the problems with the last approach concerning rewording the demolition section of the Code was how it was done to the public. Ms. Vaughey said that before it was presented for passage, it was never presented to the public as a group or with the people who had been involved with illegal demolitions, but was just sort of thrown out there. Ms. Vaughey stated that people were taken by shock and stated that the Committee might want to have an ad hoc committee of the people who have been involved with the demolitions on a repeated basis to come in and work on any rewording before it is presented to the public. Ms. Vaughey said that she felt that she thought there was a pretty good Code, but it has just been deliberately interpreted incorrectly. Ms. Vaughey stated that there should be workshops. Commissioner Hood said that there have been workshops, time and time again. Ms. Vaughey said that not on the last Code interpretation. Commissioner Hood thanked Ms. Vaughey.
Ms. Gigi Platt introduced herself as a Historic Preservation Consultant. Ms. Platt stated that there is a definition of demolition in the Planning Code in the Historic Preservation Section, which is Article 10, and the Section is 1005.F and following. Ms. Platt passed out copies to the Commission and said that she felt that it was a good definition of demolition. Ms. Platt said that it is one that is used when talking about historic buildings and stems from the Department of Interior's definition of demolition. Ms. Platt said that she would like the Committee to consider this definition. Ms. Platt said that in looking though materials, it seemed to her that it would be helpful to show on the same set of plans what is being removed and what is being retained. Ms. Platt said that she sat on the Landmarks Board and that was the requirement. Commissioner Hood said that this is a requirement of the Building Code. Ms. Platt said that she was talking about having this on one piece of paper, because in looking at the materials in the meeting package it seems that the Building Code talks about separate pieces of paper, showing on one plan what is being removed and on another what is being retained. Ms. Platt said that she felt if this were on one plan, it would be more visible. Ms. Platt said that the Planning Department is reluctant in their preliminary review of a permit to determine for anyone to hear whether they think it is a major alteration that is almost a demolition or not and tell the public that this is the Building Department's purview. Ms. Platt said that she thought there needs to be a better working relationship between the two departments because if a planner happens to be an architect and can see something, he ought to make a note for the building inspector who may have different credentials. Ms. Platt said that there is far too much of Planning saying that it is not their responsibility and DBI ignoring the issues. Ms. Platt said she would like the Committee to take this into consideration.
Mr. Steve Williams stated that he had appeared before the Commission a few weeks ago to speak about 2838 Sacramento Street. Mr. Williams said that in his opinion the problem stems from page 40 of the packet and it is an interpretation out of the City Attorney's Office which has no basis in the Code and it creates a two-tier system whereby when the 2/3 threshold is hit, of a so called alteration, it does not thereafter become a demolition. Mr. Williams said that someone can tear down 99% and call it an alteration under this interpretation and said that this is why this has become institutionalized and continues on an almost daily basis throughout the City. Mr. Williams said the memo dates back to some oral interpretation and said that people have told him over at the Building Department that even after the 2/3 has been hit that they do not then have to go and get a demolition permit. Mr. Williams said that if this definition is fit into the Code it really strips all of the policies that are supposed to be top priorities of any teeth at all. Mr. Williams said that in looking carefully at the master plan, the priority policies in the housing element, the demolition of sound housing is the number one evil to be avoided under those policies; therefore, there is a much higher scrutiny for a demolition permit. Mr. Williams stated that there is an old formula where it would have to show that it should cost 50% of the value of the building to bring it up to code before you can start a demolition. Mr. Williams said that this interpretation, which allows people to avoid this scrutiny altogether by simply getting an alteration permit, and this is what is happening out in all of the neighborhoods. Mr. Williams gave an example of a demolition permit being turned down at 1725 Lake Street three years ago and this exact same project is now back as an alteration permit. Mr. Williams said that it would be a pretty simple fix to say that when that 2/3 threshold is hit, a demolition permit is then required, and none of the phony alteration permit, which allows the applicant to escape the scrutiny and to escape the higher threshold. Commissioner Walker asked if she could ask the City Attorney to comment on Mr. Williams's statement. Ms. Boyajian said that she was looking at Mr. Litchfield's memo on page 40 that doesn't say anything about her giving advice that if you demolish 2/3 of the building, you don't need to get a demolition permit; it says you don't need one to remove a principal portion, an exterior wall, a roof and that is all that the memo says. Mr. Williams said that this is what was presented to him at a meeting on demolitions back in the first week of March with Director Frank Chiu.
Commissioner Hood asked the Zoning Administrator from City Planning, Larry Badiner to comment on the Planning Department's goals about this ordinance. Mr. Badiner said that he appreciated the opportunity and the invitation to be at the meeting. Mr. Badiner stated that he thought that it was very clear from the excellent presentation that Deputy Director Wong made that this has been an ongoing difficult discussion going back many years. Mr. Badiner said that his sense is that it is an issue that relates both to Building and Planning and in some ways it is a Planning concern about whether a building is demolished or not, but the Building Department has the expertise to review the plans, the structural analysis to determine whether it is a demolition or not, and said that he thought it was very important that the two departments work together. Mr. Badiner said that whether the ultimate solution was a definition of demolition in the Planning Code that is mirrored in the Building Code or whether it is in one Code or the other, he was not sure what the solution would be. Mr. Badiner said that if it is just in the Planning Code, Planning may not have staff the expertise to determine whether it is a demolition or not. Mr. Badiner said that many of Planning's staff have architectural training, but are not architects; many are trained as Planners, but not necessarily physical Planners and do not have the ability to read to a detailed level a structural drawing. Mr. Badiner said that an important thing to recognize through this long process, in that the Planning Department's procedures have changed and in fact, the procedures are the same whether there is a demolition or not in terms of notice. Mr. Badiner stated that under Section 311 and now Section 312 for the neighborhood commercial controls, any alteration of a building or the change in use requires notification to property owners and residents within 150 feet. Mr. Badiner said that if two projects came in that were identical in nature, the existing buildings were the same and one was proposing to add a third story, and one was proposing to demolish and build the same envelope, the Planning Department would treat both projects the same, except they would look in the demolition report to determine whether sound housing was being demolished. Mr. Badiner said that the noticing would be the same and said that he thought this was an important point of view. Mr. Badiner said that what he thinks has happened in some cases is that the notice has been incorrect, whether it was a demolition or not, the envelope that was described may not have been described as well. Mr. Badiner said that this was not to say that the word demolition on a notice is not an important flag to people, but the notice in terms of its physical description should be the same. Mr. Badiner said that the Department and himself are ready, willing and able to work with the Commission and the Building Department to come to a solution. Mr. Badiner said that he would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Hood thanked Mr. Badiner for his comments and asked if the Committee could contact Mr. Badiner for Planning involvement. Commissioner Hood said that there needs to be an expression of what are the aspects of this based on more than just the percentage of the building because in some cases 10% could be removed and it would be a disaster, if it were the wrong 10%. Commissioner Hood said that she felt this was more of a Planning issue to define why that 10% would be so critical and there needs to be a lot of creative rethinking of how to state these problems in order to get some straightforward enforceable solutions. Commissioner Hood thanked Mr. Badiner for being present.
Commissioner Hood said that she also saw former Commissioner Sig Freeman, who contributed so much to the Committee when he was on the Commission and invited him to come forward to speak to the Committee.
Sigmund Freeman introduced himself as a structural engineer and said that unfortunately nothing has changed as it is really an almost impossible task. Mr. Freeman said that the Code is so poorly written that there no way of interpreting the words. Mr. Freeman said that he was told that this was purposely done when the ordinance was written so that everyone could do whatever they want with it and that is why there is a problem. Mr. Freeman stated that the purpose has changed in the past thirteen years; the first thing is why do you have it and what are you trying to do, the purpose needs to be defined. Mr. Freeman said that then the Committee has to decide how to get it done and how to write it so that it accomplishes what the Committee is trying to do. Mr. Freeman said that one of the problems now is why do people cheat with this; in other words, everyone uses it for their own interests. Mr. Freeman said that the notification has been clarified and one of the reasons people did not want to say it was a demolition was because too many people were notified. Mr. Freeman said that if this is eliminated and make the same notification no matter what than that will solve this problem. Mr. Freeman said that another problem is that when something is demolished, what happens to property taxes; when it is demolished, it goes off the books and comes back on when it is built, what happens with Proposition 13, etc. Mr. Freeman said that everyone has a different reason for abusing this definition and everyone uses this ordinance for their reason, yet what is the Committee really trying to do and that is what the BIC and the Planning Commission need to decide and how do you do it. Mr. Freeman said that this needs to be completely rewritten. Mr. Freeman said that he would be happy to help and stated that he once came up with a questionnaire about how to interpret it. Mr. Freeman left a copy of the questionnaire for the Committee. Mr. Freeman said how do you determine even what a principal portion is, is it one wall or all the walls as there is no proper definitions. Mr. Freeman wished the Committee luck.
Mr. Dick Millet introduced himself as a member of the Potrero Boosters Association and said that he has a problem with the notification, as he is a big pusher on notification. Mr. Millet said that in the Planning Department when a 311 notification goes out to the public they also notify the neighborhood organizations and this is a big help. Mr. Millet said that in his neighborhood the neighbors call the organization to find out what is going on, as they can't read the notifications anyway, but stated that the association does not get the notifications. Mr. Millet said that these are issued by Building Inspection, not the Planning Department so he does not get notices from DBI very often and thinks that when notices are sent, neighborhood organizations should be notified because eventually they are the ones who try to lead the fight. Commissioner Hood said that there used to be an up to date list in the Planning Department of the neighborhood organizations. Mr. Millet said that City Planning did have that list, but Building Inspection issues their own. Commissioner Hood said that she was sure that City Planning would be happy to share the list with the Building Inspection Department. Commissioner Hood said that this practice needed to be reactivated because very often the person who is the leader has changed or moved and now that there are planners assigned on a more area-wide basis it would be very helpful to have such an up to date list of those to be contacted or anyone in a particular zip code. Commissioner Hood said the organizations could fill out an annual application and keep it updated that way. Commissioner Hood said that perhaps this could be one of the Committee's first goals. Mr. Millet said that this would be a big help and stated that there is a neighborhood newsletter with a City Planning column that he writes and in that column he lists all of the notices describing the projects and the expediters and planners. Mr. Millet said that he lists demolition permits in bold letters on the newsletter when he knows about them because a lot of people don't realize there is a demolition until they see the building coming down.
Commissioner Hood introduced former Commissioner Pat Buscovich who was a structural engineer on the Commission. Mr. Buscovich said that he wanted to reinforce what former Commissioner Sig Freeman said. Mr. Buscovich stated that there is basically one sentence that defines a substantial amount of how business is done in San Francisco and how residential units are regulated. Mr. Buscovich said that if you start taking apart this one sentence and start looking at it you realize there are a lot of problems with it. Mr. Buscovich said that he looks at it from a code basis because he writes and interprets code and this is not enforceable. Mr. Buscovich said that regarding principal portion, is adding a story affecting the principal portion and therefore an unlawful demolition? Mr. Buscovich said that he was sure someone could make the argument that adding a story is an unlawful demolition. Mr. Buscovich said that then you can go into 2/3 alter and what is the definition of alter. Mr. Buscovich said that he could not find the definition in the Building Code and is altering a floor just putting hardwood down. Mr. Buscovich said that as silly as it sounds, is that an unlawful demolition; is pulling down plaster on old homes and putting up sheetrock, is that alter. Mr. Buscovich said that there are no definitions and then in looking at the 2/3's rule and ask what it is 2/3 of, the walls, the floors or is it all added together. Mr. Buscovich said that he could go on and on, but this one sentence is not enforceable and it needs to be broken down so that anyone can read it. Mr. Buscovich said that right now the people that are reading it are people who can pay a lot of money for a permit expediter or code consultant, but the general public is not taking advantage of it because they cannot afford this expertise which is not good public policy. Mr. Buscovich said that everybody should be able to read the Code and at least understand some of the basis, not the very technical sections of Chapter 16, but the Administrative Sections of Chapter 1 most members of the general public should understand. Mr. Buscovich said that he would make a suggestion that whatever the Committee does, they want to add specific exemptions and triggers. Mr. Buscovich said that certain things should trigger flat out, like taking down the façade of a historic building. Mr. Buscovich said that if you leave the rest of the building, but take down the façade, maybe that is an unlawful demolition; other things should be allowed right off the bat. Mr. Buscovich said that certain things should be unlawful demolitions and other things should not trigger it.
Ms. Alice Barkley said that there is a general agreement that this Code section is vague and people have problems and she said that she, as an attorney, certainly has problems with it. Ms. Barkley said that if the exterior envelope is not changed at all, so that there is no change in the neighborhood character, and someone brought a house or two unit building and wants to totally retrofit it, this should not be called a demolition because the building envelope stays. Ms. Barkley said that interior changes only, should never trigger unlawful demolition. Ms. Barkley said that there has to be a clear exemption on the demolition of an exterior wall due to conditions such as pests, lack of foundation and that is something that is triggered after the construction process is already started. Ms. Barkley said that this should be exempt, but there should be a procedure to make sure that the inspector testifies to that and there is a paper trail. Ms. Barkley said that the Committee really needs to define the percentage of the exterior wall as this gives everybody a problem. Ms. Barkley said she did not care if it was 50%, 60% or 70% whatever the Committee wants, just do it - put the percentage in. Ms. Barkley said that enforcement would be very easy; just make the architect or the engineer that comes in with the plan put the percentage of the wall that is going to be removed on the plan. Ms. Barkley said that as far as notification is concerned Planning already sends out the 311 notices and it is no big deal and the 311 notice could clearly indicate if this is a demolition. Ms. Barkley said that she agrees with not using the definition of unlawful demolition that is in Article 10, as Article 10 addresses landmark buildings and is whole different breed of animal. Ms. Barkley stated that anything that is landmarked has to go through excruciating certificate of appropriateness and lots of extra procedures. Ms. Barkley said that if this was put into the Code for the rest of the buildings that are not historically significant, it would add to the length of time to get a permit and add to the cost of housing in the City. Ms. Barkely said that even if they are not landmarked buildings in the City there are still procedures that a builder has to go through as far as the landmark board review. Ms. Barkley said that there is another area that is very clouded and there is no amount of rewriting or legislative writing that can pinpoint every single gray area. Ms. Barkley said that she would submit a couple of samples to the Committee as her time was up.
Mr. Tom Moganson introduced himself as a member of the Board of the Upper Noe Neighbors and said that he would be brief. Mr. Moganson said that he would like to reiterate what the gentleman from Potrero Hill said that it should actually be in the Code that if there is a demolition the neighborhood associations should be notified as well as the immediate neighbors. Mr. Moganson said that the associations are the ones that end up fighting an unlawful demolition and often find out about it too late. Mr. Moganson said that Commission Hood's idea of notification by zip code is a good one because as it stands now the association must go in and look at the maps in the City to find lot and block numbers.
Mr. Ian Berke said that when 2710 Broadway was torn down about six or seven years ago the neighborhood thought that if there ever was an unlawful demolition, this was it. Mr. Berke said that the Department refused to declare it an unlawful demolition and the gates were open and this section of the Code was being completely ignored. Mr. Berke said that this set a terrible precedent and unleashed a plague of these things. Mr. Berke said that he sees them in his neighborhood; there is one on Pierce, 3376 Clay, one on the corner of 19th and Lake and the designer is an architect on the Landmarks Board, and this goes on and on. Mr. Berke stated that at first he was really faulting Frank Chiu, but said that in retrospect as he went through these 135 pages of testimony and documents, it is not the Director's fault; it is the Building Commissions fault. Mr. Berke said that the Commission never had the political will to deal with this and if they don't have the political will to deal with it now, nothing is going to change. Mr. Berke said that this seems very discouraging to him. Commissioner Hood said that she agreed with Mr. Berke that political will is the deal here.
Mr. Joe Butler introduced himself as an architect in the City. Mr. Butler thanked the Commission for the hearing and said that he wanted to come at the subject from a little different angle. Mr. Butler said that once principal portion and demolition are defined the Committee should look at what sound housing is and is not. Mr. Butler stated that Bob Passmore used to say that if you classified all of the unsound housing in the City and demolished it tomorrow there would be 40% of the buildings left. Mr. Butler said that another loophole that has been used frequently by builders who want to demolish a structure is declaring it unsound. Mr. Butler said that in spite of the fact that there have been two big earthquakes and some 19th century buildings still stand, most engineers today would call them unsound as they do not meet any of the current seismic codes and probably don't have any concrete in their foundations, certainly no steel, but these buildings should not be lost. Mr. Butler said that with respect to the Article 10 definition of demolition, why wouldn't it be used if the buildings that exist in the City today or the ones that will be built soon will be the only ones that will be landmarks.
4. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Committee's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Ms. Daniella Kirshenbaum introduced herself as a board member of the Pacific Heights Residence Association and said that her comments were not specifically about the history of the Unlawful Demolition Committee, but stated that she was present to represent the people who could not take the day off from work. Ms. Kirshenbaum said that she was charged with letting the Committee know that there is no small amount of outrage that this has been going on for so long. Ms. Kirshenbaum said that she did not think there was going to be a lot of patience for platitudes about working together; also, it won't be enough to say if it doesn't affect the envelope then it is okay. Ms. Kirshenbaum said she was not clear on how principal portion or 2/3 was measured ordetermined; whether the debris is weighed or if the inches of walls are measured. Ms. Kirshenbaum said that all her association knows is that it does not make any sense to them, nor does it make any sense to the tourists who come from other communities, large and small across the world, who have very strict enforcement and policies on what can and cannot be done. Ms. Kirshenbaum said that she did not think that anyone from outside of the San Francisco community has seen anything like it where things can be just ripped down. Ms. Kirshenbaum stated that other communities are very specific about how large the size can be or what kinds of renovations can be done. Ms. Kirshenbaum said that she appreciated the Committee's consideration and hoped that this would come to a rapid conclusion and the community sees a lot of changes occur very quickly.
Commissioner Hood asked that any groups present would make sure that the Secretary had their names and addresses for future notification of meetings.
Mr. Edward Evans introduced himself as an organizer for Community Resources Action Project and stated that he was present to speak for the Senior and Disabled Concerns Committee. Mr. Evans said that frankly he did not think that there are enough inspectors out in the community inspecting for access violations and said that his group would like to see an increase in the number of inspectors. Mr. Evans stated that there are some inspectors who are very diligent and are doing their jobs properly and there are others who are not doing it properly. Mr. Evans said that his group would like to see the inspectors not hamstrung by certain forces within the Building Inspection Department. Mr. Evans stated that, as other people have said, there are specific laws out there and codes and so forth that have to be followed and some people are just ignoring access codes for the disabled. Mr. Evans said that the disabled have to go into stores and shop and have to have access to housing. Mr. Evans stated that it is very important that the codes that are set down by the State are not watered down through the Department and there needs to be people out there that are conscientiously enforcing, by the book, these codes. Mr. Evans thanked the Committee and stated that the senior and disabled people in San Francisco will appreciate if something is done about this.
5. Review Commissioner's Questions and Matters.
a. Inquiries to Staff. At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Committee.
Commissioner Hood said that she would like to do Agenda Item #5b first and the do Item #5a as she thought the inquiries to staff would follow from setting the future agendas.
b. Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Committee may discuss and take action to set the date of a future meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agendas of the next or future meetings.
Commissioner Hood said that she agreed very much with the person who spoke from the Pacific Heights Neighborhood group that said that immediate action is needed. Commissioner Hood said that this has to be clearly definable and as result clearly enforceable and not be so vague that it really doesn't exist. Commissioner Hood said that she believed in order to accomplish that, the first thing the Committee needed to do was to define in one of the categories of the agenda what are the planning aspects that this needs to cover. Commissioner Hood said that she was thinking of a way of defining the rule of the building in the neighborhoods in which there are precedents, in other words neighborhood guidelines, and a way of documenting that and would be done prior to receiving a permit for any changes in existing walls. Commissioner Hood said that almost every permit would have to have a sort of litmus test to see if anything were changed especially on the outside. Secondly, Commissioner Hood said that an item that should be on the agenda would be the need to have something in the Code called reconstruction and the reconstruction needs to be something that would identify what needs to be retained or removed and replaced and that whole process. Commissioner Hood stated that the reconstruction would require much more precise drawings of what is there now than is typically the case at this point. Commissioner Hood said that with respect to demolition she thought that the Committee needs to define what demolition is, very clearly, and it needs to have more than the square footage requirements or the percentage requirements for the principal components definition that existed in the past. Commissioner Hood stated that she felt that this definition was very likely to grow out of planning considerations and not out of any measurements of area and vague words like principal. Commissioner Hood said finally, as Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian mentioned that the Department has to take away the reason that people are doing this and that is because it is financially advantageous to do it. Commissioner Hood said that she has been trying to look to resources to find out what kind of penalty would have to be imposed and initially she thought of having a contractor post a bond. Commissioner Hood said for example, a bond like someone has to post when tearing up a public sidewalk that is required by DPW; and this should be looked into more because right now, not only is there something that is not enforceable, but there is only a $5,000 penalty in a City where the median cost of a house is $500,000 and that is only a 1% penalty. Commissioner Hood said that obviously there has to be something with teeth in it and it has to be to the magnitude of the value to the person who is exploiting this law and if this is not in place there will never be closure of this situation or clarity of enforcement that the Building Inspection Department can clearly enforce. Commissioner Hood said she appreciated it very much when someone said that it was not Frank Chiu's fault because he hasn't had an ordinance with clarity that he could enforce. Commissioner Hood stated that she hoped that this Committee would develop some language that would deal with these items on its next agenda. Commissioner Hood said that she knew this would generated much debate as it goes out to the neighborhood groups, but if the Committee really hears what the neighborhood is saying, what is needed is focus to act on the examples and information given. Commissioner Hood said that in listing the planning issues that would enter into the definition of demolition, she hoped the Committee would work very closely with the Planning Department and Larry Badiner's offer of assistance.
Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to thank everyone for coming and stated that she thought this was the first of whatever kinds of hearings there needs to be to get this thing right and hopefully the Committee can make this happen as quickly as possible. Commissioner Walker stated that to that end, she would like to suggest that the Committee needs to meet at least one other time and probably two other times to come up with some solutions. Commissioner Walker asked those who were representing groups and/or individuals who have suggestions to please send them to the Secretary of the Committee and she will disperse them to the Commissioners. Commissioner Walker stated that she agreed with a lot of the people out there that there are issues of definition and issues of process which all affect enforcement, etc., but there does need to be some sort of system that allows flexibility. Commissioner Walker said she valued the input from the former Commissioners and said that she read the package and said that it seemed to be pretty much all over the place. Commissioner Walker said that it seemed to be that there was no intent to have something that could be defined or enforced and said that the Committee really needs to deal with the process and said that part of the problem is how plans are looked at. Commissioner Walker said she wanted to ask the staff to think about the process; even the forms and whether it makes sense to have one set of plans, or continue doing it as it is now where it is separate. Commissioner Walker said that she has heard arguments on both sides and said that if the Department looks at things going in some of the stuff that has to be dealt with in the middle of projects might be avoided. Commissioner Walker said that it is one of those things that frustrates the neighborhoods, horribly, and also frustrates the people who haven't planned to engage in that sort of activity. Commissioner Walker said that there needs to be some attention to where the Department has a process where they are looking at it and need to encourage people who are coming in with projects to do a little more up front work to stick things through the wall to see if there is dry rot. Commissioner Walker stated that more attention needs to be paid at the beginning or developers are going to get caught in stuff like this. Commissioner Walker said that some of the problems that occur that the Commission sees are in projects that did not initially plan to demolish, but then ended up demolishing and it may be a separate thing that needs to happen with separate penalties and separate noticing requirements, but a demolition is a demolition whether it occurs intentionally or in the middle of a project like Mr. Williams was talking about with Sacramento Street.
Assistant Director Amy Lee said that she thought that this was certainly something that this Committee would keep in mind as this has been a very difficult issue for the Department and staff has had a hard time making decisions and doing follow-up work. Ms. Lee said that there has been a lot of neighborhood activism with this issue and the Department is looking to this Committee to get public input and weigh both the technical side as well as the neighborhood side. Ms. Lee stated if there are any procedural changes that the Department must make, they would certainly do so, but Ms. Lee said that the Department was hoping that the Committee would cover those items and give the Department some guidance.
Commissioner Santos said that the Committee would have to notify different consultants that work with the City as to how they present drawings; this is a question that Commissioner Walker brought up as a matter of presentation and are two sets of plans required showing a before and after picture. Commissioner Santos said that some of the people that would be notified about potential work to be done might not understand drawings that will have a combined hybrid version of new wall and existing wall. Commissioner Hood said that when there is a bond that is equal to the value of the work done that is forfeited if they don't show it clearly on the drawings, it would start appearing. Commissioner Santos said that there are a few speakers who talked about exemptions and there is a vision of changing a wall and making everyone happy, but it is important to look at the smaller issues that are more tangible. Commissioner Santos stated that there is no reason why brick foundations should be preserved even if they are 300 years old as that doesn't make any sense. Commissioner Santos said that the Committee could exempt foundations and said that he agreed with a speaker that talked about interior walls. Commissioner Santos said that the historical nature of most buildings could be preserved by saving exterior walls and there is no reason to elaborate and spend endless hours analyzing what interior walls need to be preserved. Commissioner Hood said that every wall on the inside could not be changed and still leave the exterior exactly as it is and said that this is one of the dangers that have existed in the past, as it is easy to say things in words that are very difficult to relate to drawings, the graphic representation of them. Commissioner Hood stated that what has been lacking in clarity is those two things to be tied together in an unambiguous way and said that she thought that is what the Committee is looking to get. Commissioner Hood said that she would like to include on the agenda that the building permits do not need to be rewritten because when the ordinance is reconstructed it will be obvious what the permit needs to be. Commissioner Hood stated that she would like the Committee to deal with notice because there needs to be no penalty as the notice needs to be the same in all cases so that there is no advantage to describe the job as remodeling as opposed to a demolition. Commissioner Hood said that if the notice is the same and it is just as easy to get from the organizations that give those things, it is increasingly something that more people rather than fewer need to know about. Commissioner Hood said that this would be a lot for the next meeting and if the Committee could focus on these items and then do spin off meetings on things that need to be clarified. Commissioner Hood said that all of the information needs to get back to those people who are interested in this process for their review so it is not just something that suddenly emerges. Commissioner Walker asked if the Committee could try to schedule a meeting and maybe consider doing one in the evening or on a Saturday to accommodate more people's schedules. Commissioner Walker asked that the Secretary mail out and notice the same people that she did for this meeting, which is pretty extensive. Commissioner Walker said that the Committee really needs to clarify what it is asking from people and the community needs to send input. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to see suggestions from the community submitted before the next hearing so that the Committee can start talking about solutions to this. Commissioner Walker said that everyone seems to sit in the meeting and agree on the problem, that there is one, but the Committee needs to start focusing on the solution.
A member of the public asked how to submit suggestions. Commissioner Walker said to write to the Building Inspection Commission at 1660 Mission Street, Attention Unlawful Demolition Committee, San Francisco, CA 94103-2414. Commissioner Hood said that the mailing address was at the bottom of the agenda. Commissioner Walker said that if information was sent to the Committee, the secretary would make sure that the information was included in the package with enough time for the members of the Committee to review it and actually think about in terms of how to move forward.
Commissioner Hood said that there is a problem with finding a room in City Hall for a night meeting and said that logically Saturdays would be very difficult. Commissioner Santos asked if it were possible to have a meeting at City Hall on a Saturday. Commissioner Hood said that City Hall might be locked up tight on Saturdays. Secretary Ann Aherne said that someone mentioned that there was an auditorium behind DBI that the Committee might be able to get for a meeting. Ms. Lee said that there was the Department of Human Services auditorium that might be available. Commissioner Hood stated that there had been problems with access in that room in the past. Ms. Lee said that she thought that those problems had been taken care of as there are now public meetings held there. Commissioner Walker said that she would suggest scheduling a meeting for an evening within a month from now. Commissioner Hood said that she would like to see the meeting take place two weeks from now and keep it moving every two weeks until there is some kind of resolution that she hoped would be within six weeks. Commissioner Walker asked the Secretary to schedule it for Tuesday evening two weeks from now, whatever that date is. Commissioner Hood said that would be a start and then the Secretary could confirm it. Commissioner Walker wanted it to begin at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Walker said that would be enough time to get the notices out to the public. Secretary Aherne asked if that would allow enough time to receive information from the public. Commissioner Walker said that she would suggest that the public get the information together as soon they can. Commissioner Hood said that the Committee would be moving rapidly and said that the Committee heard what was said in the meeting today and would not wait for everyone to write something. Commissioner Hood said that the Committee welcomed the public's input and ideas, but would be moving ahead on a very fast schedule as that is what she is hearing from the people in this room, that this needs to be solved. Commissioner Hood said that this has been worked on for the past thirteen years and it is time that there was a conclusion.
Commissioner Hood asked if there was any further public comment.
Mr. Bruce Bonacker apologized for being late and said that his comments related to some of the things that were being said. Mr. Bonacker stated that one of the things that is very important to him in all of this is that as the Committee looks for public comment, not only do they look for public suggestions on how to solve what is perceived to be very much a public problem, but that the Committee look for what it is that they are trying to solve with demolition definitions. Mr. Bonacker said that he wears three hats in front of the Committee regarding this issue; one is that of an architect who does residential alteration work and some new buildings; second, as a preservations and third as a neighborhood activist. Mr. Bonacker stated that what everyone has before them now is very, very unclear and his perception is that this is a planning issue and frankly does not even belong in front of the Building Inspection Commission, but thanked the Committee for taking it on because it happens to be in the Building Code. Mr. Bonacker said that in his view it belongs in the Planning Commission, and shame on them for not dealing with it, and maybe they are going to deal with it. Commissioner Hood said that if Mr. Bonacker was at the meeting earlier he would have heard the exchange with the Zoning Administrator Larry Badiner. Mr. Bonacker said that he apologized and stated that this was very good, but said that he brought this up because his view is that most of the concern within the community has to do with Planning issues rather than Building Code issues. Mr. Bonacker said that the process of resolving the issues within the Building Code, the issues can also be identified within the Planning Code and it needs to be identified correctly who it is that should do the kind of review when the plans go in for review and who is supposed to contact the architect and say, sorry you can't do this because your building is in fact a demolition and you have to conform to a different procedure. Mr. Bonacker stated that this sort of information needs to get to the architect or project manager real early in the process and has to come to the neighborhood associations as well to let them know that there is this potential problem issue out there. Mr. Bonacker said that right now what happens is that there is enforcement only after complaint and that is an extremely difficult situation for everybody to be in, neighborhood association, preservationist, architect, owner and structural engineer. Mr. Bonacker said that the problems need to be found early and then as Commissioner Hood has suggested, a serious bond might help in terms of making sure that all of the information is shown on the plans in a way that everyone can understand it.
6. Adjournment.
Commissioner Walker made motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC 026-01
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Ann Marie Aherne
Secretary