Commission wrestles with safety, enforcement and tenant protections in high‑profile San Bruno Avenue legalization hearing

San Francisco — The Planning Commission spent extensive time Thursday on an informational update about the complex enforcement and legalization questions at 2861–2899 San Bruno Avenue, a case staff says has a long approval history and later widespread unauthorized alterations.

Planning Department staff told commissioners the project originally received approvals and building permits in 2012–2013 for a mixed‑use building with 10 residential units but that subsequent inspections and a 2019 task‑force review found about 29 dwelling units and other unauthorised modifications. Notices of violation were issued by Planning, DBI and the Fire Department; staff said a settlement with property owners included penalty provisions but did not bind the commission’s discretion on future approvals.

Public comment was intense: tenants’ advocates, neighborhood associations and community groups urged the city to hold developers accountable, convert illegal units to affordable housing and avoid displacement of existing occupants. Jerry Drattler and others alleged regulatory failures and asked why DBI inspections did not catch violations; multiple neighborhood organizations urged on‑site affordable conversion and referenced a reported $1.2 million settlement.

Commissioners focused first on life‑safety and code questions. Fire Marshal Ken Coughlin and Joe Duffy of DBI described interim measures installed in 2019 — sprinkler and fire‑alarm systems, and exterior egress scaffolding shaped as stairways — and said those measures provide a degree of life‑safety while remediation proceeds. DBI said structural and concealed work will likely need to be opened for inspection and that third‑party special inspection reports may be required; inspectors said they saw no immediate signs of structural failure but that remediation will be extensive and disruptive.

At the same time, commissioners pressed staff about tenant outcomes. Staff and the zoning administrator described inclusionary‑housing calculations and grandfathering differences; staff estimated that using the older grandfathered methodology could result in an in‑lieu affordability fee on the order of ~$2.3 million for a hypothetical 27‑unit proposal, while current methodology and unit mix could change that figure. Commissioners suggested a range of directions: return to the originally approved 10‑unit design; require a code‑compliant project with on‑site BMRs; or pursue city acquisition, which staff said would be a Board of Supervisors‑level and lengthy process.

Several commissioners emphasized that public trust and life‑safety are paramount. “If this isn’t a safe building, we can’t be having this conversation,” Commissioner Diamond said, pressing on independent inspections and whether the building can be made compliant without displacement. DBI and Fire agreed that remediation will be necessary and that tenant relocation and sequencing should be planned to limit harm.

Staff asked for direction; commissioners signaled a mix of priorities: ensuring safety and code compliance first, exploring ways to maximize on‑site affordability if units are legalized, and proactive tenant outreach. The hearing ended without a final commission decision; staff will return with targeted analysis and options on unit counts, feasible code‑compliant configurations and tenant protections.