What's the origin/intent of the Ordinance?
- The measure was introduced on May 5, 2009 by Board of Supervisors President David Chiu and Supervisor Bevan Dufty.
- Many cities have this type of ordinance (under the 'public nuisance' ordinance of the code).
- At its core, the measure attempts to mitigate the deterioration of a building.
- On June 3, 2009, the San Francisco Planning Department: Historic Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the measure. The Commission approved the Ordinance, with modifications. You can view the Commission's recommendation and documents related to their action, here.
- On June 10, 2009, the measure was heard before the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) where they recommended "non-support of [the] ordinance as written, and in lieu recommen[ed] that the Department of Building Inspection develop administrative procedures to enforce existing requirements." You can read the CAC's letter to the BIC, here.
- On June 12, 2009, DBI Director Vivian Day responded to the Planning Department's recommendation of the Ordinance that can be viewed here. In short, the measure is not enforceable by DBI.
- On June 12, 2009, the BIC approved a motion to notify the Board of Supervisors that it does not support the Ordinance.
- Do we need another ordinance? There are already City ordinances that cover blight.
- What about buildings slated for demolition, or those waiting for rehabilitation? There needs to be a consensus review of this issue.
- Finding insurance on a vacant building can be difficult. How can this be addressed?
- What is the definition of a blighted building?
- The City doesn't know how many blighted buildings it has.
- This is a big brother issue: The City should help building owners improve their buildings, NOT impose another City mandate.
Your BOMA Advocacy Team will continue to monitor the Registration of Vacant/Abandoned Buildings Ordinance and report any new developments on this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment