Commission backs stronger planning-code penalties, seeks clarifications on timing and construction prohibitions

The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission on Jan. 18 voted 7–0 to forward recommendations to the legislative sponsor and Planning Commission for a proposed ordinance that would strengthen planning-code enforcement and impose stiffer penalties for illegal construction affecting historic resources.

Staff framed the package as a tool to improve compliance. Zoning Administrator Corey Teague and Enforcement lead Kelly Wong outlined the existing, complaint-driven enforcement process and said staff typically begin with notices and site visits before issuing a Notice of Violation (NOV). They said current administrative penalties are up to $250 per day after a 15-day cure period, and the base administrative processing fee is $1,580. Planning staff then presented a proposed ordinance that would raise daily administrative penalties to up to $1,000 and create one-time punitive fines of up to $250,000 for each dwelling unit illegally added or removed and up to $500,000 for each historic structure significantly altered, damaged or demolished. The draft would allow stacking of daily fines and one-time fines; the Board of Appeals could not reduce a $500,000 assessment to less than $100,000 if it agreed with the zoning administrator.

Staff recommended a set of clarifications and policy changes: (1) clarify that the one-time fines and the five-year construction prohibition would be triggered from the date a Notice of Violation is issued; (2) remove the proposed five-year ban on construction as counterproductive, because it can lead to blight and stalled sites; and (3) limit the reach of the historic-preservation definitions so they apply only to the high-dollar, one-time penalty provisions. Audrey Marloney, planning staff presenting the ordinance, said the department will return with comprehensive definitions for “significant alteration” and “demolition” once the ordinance is adopted.

Members of the public urged strong enforcement while raising equity and technical concerns. Public commenter Georgia Shudish asked the commission to review demolition-calculation rules and warned that numeric thresholds can be manipulated; Shudish also urged staff to consider how adjustments affect preservation outcomes. Representatives from Supervisor Hillary Ronan’s office said the sponsor considered high fines to be legally defensible and that staff input has already shaped the draft.

Commissioners pressed staff on how fines would be set in practice, what criteria the zoning administrator would use, and how the department would protect low-income or non-English-speaking property owners. Staff noted that the ordinance requires the Planning Commission (and the HPC) to adopt guidance within 12 months of the ordinance’s effective date to provide consistent factors and criteria the zoning administrator must use when setting penalty amounts. Staff also said the department offers payment plans and can record liens, refer cases to the City Attorney, and pursue collections when fees go unpaid.

Following discussion, a motion to recommend approval with the staff’s three recommended modifications passed unanimously. The Planning Department will follow up with definitions and guidance for penalty application should the ordinance proceed through the legislative process.