A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Residents, a retired CFO press DBI on elevator maintenance loophole and use of $1 administrative permits

November 16, 2022 | San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Residents, a retired CFO press DBI on elevator maintenance loophole and use of $1 administrative permits
Three public speakers used the commission’s public comment period to press DBI on building‑safety and permit‑finalization practices.

Architect James Heron described a gap in the housing code that he said allows elevator maintenance to be avoided in many four‑story residential buildings. "The housing code, however, seems to suggest that only elevator buildings 5 stories or more are required to maintain those elevators," Heron said, adding that his building at 2960 Polk Street — a four‑story, 12‑unit elevator building — was left without a working elevator when an owner appealed a director’s order of abatement by invoking what Heron called a "pernicious 50 foot loophole." He urged the commission to correct the code to protect seniors and residents with disabilities.

Jerry Drattler (public commenter) raised a separate but related oversight concern about DBI’s use of administrative permits to final expired building permits. Drattler provided examples including 418 Congo Street, 555 Fulton Street and a long‑running 2013 permit for 55 Fulton, and alleged DBI issued $1 administrative permits to final work that previously had open, high‑value permits. "DBI should not use administrative permits to final building permits," Drattler said, and asked the commission to change practice and increase oversight.

DBI staff did not offer an immediate policy change during the meeting but acknowledged the concerns and said they would follow up. Commissioners heard the testimony and did not vote on a code change that day; they encouraged staff to take the comments into account and to provide additional information about administrative permit use and the interpretation of elevator maintenance rules at a future meeting.

Next steps: Commissioners requested follow‑up information from staff on administrative‑permit practices and a clearer explanation of the housing‑code provisions that govern elevator maintenance for lower‑rise buildings.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee