Planning Commission backs staff changes to Ronan-sponsored enforcement ordinance after lengthy debate

The San Francisco Planning Commission on Jan. 19 recommended changes to a Supervisor Hillary Ronan–backed ordinance designed to strengthen enforcement of the city's planning and building codes. The commission voted 7–0 to adopt staff modifications, including a requirement that outstanding notices of violation be recorded on property title and ask the supervisor's office to reconsider fixed minimum penalty floors.

The ordinance, presented by Santiago Lerma from Supervisor Ronan's office, would raise the maximum administrative daily fine to $1,000 and create one-time fines for illegal construction of up to $250,000 per dwelling unit added or lost and up to $500,000 for demolition of an historic structure. "With 20 extra units, you can potentially have one unit paying for the fees into perpetuity and 19 units to profit off of that," Lerma said when explaining the need to raise penalties for egregious actors.

Planning Department staff told commissioners the proposed changes also codify several notices used in practice, create an order-of-abatement authority, and allow the department to place liens and report licensed professionals to state licensing boards. Audrey Marloney, planning department staff, said the ordinance includes new factors to guide the zoning administrator in setting penalty amounts, including whether a violation was willful, whether there was financial gain, and whether tenants were displaced.

Public commenters were sharply divided. Neighborhood advocates and some commissioners pointed to recent high-profile cases — including San Bruno Avenue incidents discussed earlier in the hearing — as evidence that current penalties are insufficient. Builders' groups and small-contractor representatives warned that overly broad or high penalties could unintentionally punish honest mistakes and small operators. "For that 5 extra square feet do you need to wait 5 years?" Residential Builders Association representative Sean Kegren asked, arguing the statute could sweep in minor work that triggers demolition calculations.

Commissioners debated several calibrations: whether appeals windows should be 15 or 30 days, whether the Board of Permit Appeals should be prevented from reducing certain penalties below a fixed minimum, and how to protect subsequent purchasers who did not have notice of violations. The body ultimately endorsed staff's modifications while directing the supervisor's office to consider a lower minimum than the $50,000 floor flagged in the draft ordinance.

The commission instructed staff to work with the sponsor to craft implementing regulations and criteria that distinguish between small, inadvertent violations and large, willful schemes that threaten housing stock or life-safety. The measure will return to the Board of Supervisors for consideration; the commission's action expresses the department's technical recommendations and the commission's policy input.

What happens next: staff will draft the regulatory factors for assessing fines and other implementing rules and coordinate with the supervisor's office; any change to the ordinance itself must be adopted by the Board of Supervisors.