San Francisco planning and building staff urge unified demolition definition and tougher enforcement after public outcry

San Francisco planning and building staff told a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Building Inspection Commission on April 12 that the city needs a clearer, citywide approach to defining and enforcing what counts as a demolition.

"We really need to establish one shared definition for the city and not have this bifurcated set of rules between two different codes and two different agencies," said Liz Waddy, deputy director of current planning, summarizing planning staff's view that the Planning Code's "tantamount to demolition" test (Planning Code §3.17) and the Building Code's demolition definition produce inconsistent outcomes and public confusion.

Waddy and Department of Building Inspection staff walked commissioners through the technical problem: Planning Code §3.17 uses two multi-part calculations (a lineal/facade test and a surface-area test) that require meeting both parts of each clause to trigger a demolition designation. A project can remove large façade areas yet still fall under the thresholds for alteration, producing situations where buildings look gutted on site but are not classified as demolition under the code.

"The key in this definition…is the word removal," Waddy said, explaining how the Planning Code treats replacement of exterior elements for like‑for‑like repairs as non-removal but treats more substantial re‑assembly as removal. She added the present formulas are difficult for members of the public and staff to apply in the field.

DBI's chief inspector, Patrick O'Rearden, and DBI engineer Cyril Yu explained how field conditions and life‑safety rules complicate enforcement. Yu emphasized a structural trigger commonly called the "30 percent rule": when work affects roughly 30 percent of tributary roof or floor area it can require full lateral strengthening and broader seismic upgrades under the building code. O'Rearden said vertical additions are the most frequent source of unauthorized demolition in the field and estimated DBI substantiates about "four or five" instances per year where work exceeded approved demolition scope.

DBI also described how the city's penalty framework functions today: penalties for exceeding the scope of a permit are calculated at two times the permit issuance fee and work done with no permit is penalized at nine times the permit issuance fee, while code enforcement fees and abatements can raise costs into the thousands. Planning staff noted administrative fines can run up to $250 per day in severe enforcement cases and may be appealed to the Board of Appeals.

Public comment at the hearing ran more than two hours. Neighborhood groups, tenants' advocates, architects and builders repeatedly urged a single, quantitative, easy‑to‑apply demolition definition, earlier on‑site inspections, better interagency coordination and stiffer, targeted penalties for repeat offenders. Speakers called for tenant protections including a five‑year lookback to determine whether units are rent‑controlled, and for plan submissions signed under penalty of perjury.

"There should be a new definition for demolition. It has to be clear, easily calculable, quantitative, measurable and live in both planning and building codes," said George Whiting of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods. Multiple speakers described cases they said showed enforcement failures, heritage loss and neighborhood blight when unpermitted work stalled and sites were left tarped or abandoned.

Several design and construction professionals urged the commissions to balance life‑safety needs with workable field procedures. Builders and DBI staff noted unexpected conditions such as dry rot or unforeseen structural upgrades often arise during construction and can force scope changes. DBI recommended requiring a dedicated demolition page in plan sets, routing structural addenda to planning for consistency checks and conducting a DBI start‑of‑work inspection for vertical additions or projects with valuations above $150,000.

Commissioners from both bodies expressed broad agreement on several priorities: create simpler, more transparent rules; coordinate planning and DBI definitions and processes; use the city's permit tracking system to flag high‑risk projects and repeat bad actors; require more proactive site verification; and revisit penalties so they deter serial violators rather than serving only as cost of doing business.

Planning staff proposed an interagency working group with representation from both commissions and Supervisor Aaron Peskin's office and said a first draft of proposals could be ready in about three months, ahead of the commissions' summer recess. Staff also confirmed permit‑tracking integration (Acela) with DBI is targeted to go live in September to help flag projects and improve transparency.

The commissions did not vote on code changes at the hearing. Directors said they will organize a working group, notify commissioners of follow‑up informational sessions, and return with proposals and potential legislative language and operational changes. The chairs closed public comment and set the next steps as staff-led drafting and outreach with a target to report back this summer.