Commission approves permits to legalize dozens of live‑work units after heated exchange over past permit irregularities

SAN FRANCISCO — After a prolonged hearing dominated by questions about past permitting and enforcement, the San Francisco Planning Commission voted unanimously on June 11 not to take discretionary review and to approve permits that would legalize dozens of dwelling units at properties on Bridal Street and Pennsylvania Street.

Planning staff said the applications would legalize multiple units across four properties: legalization proposals would yield, by building, 32 live‑work/10 dwelling units at one site, 36/9 at another, 34/7 at a third, and 22/4 at 208 Pennsylvania (figures presented in the staff presentation). Planner Ritz Soukray recommended the commission not take discretionary review and to approve the project, noting the proposals do not alter exteriors and that the department found the projects consistent with the planning code and relevant area plans.

Attorney Sue Hester, representing the DR requester, told the commission she had spent months reviewing files and alleged that records are missing and that earlier fraudulent plans and construction by a now‑indicted designer allowed the creation of additional units without proper permits. "There is nothing in the files that really explains what happened on these projects," Hester said, and she urged the commission to continue the hearing until staff could assemble the evidence and explain the prior review process.

Essex Portfolio LP represented by Alan Murphy urged the commission not to take discretionary review and said the pending approvals are intended to bring existing units into compliance and avoid displacing current occupants. "Without approvals evictions of occupants in at least 15 to 20 of these units will be unavoidable," Murphy said, adding that the process will result in payment of applicable impact and affordable‑housing fees.

Zoning staff and commissioners discussed notices of special restrictions (NSRs) tied to live‑work units, enforcement mechanisms and whether a time‑limited monitoring program should compel compliance. The zoning administrator reported counts of active business licenses at the addresses (a basic DataSF search showed 17 of 32 business licenses at one address; 15 of 36 at another; 22 of 34 at the third; and 18 of 22 at 208 Pennsylvania), evidence staff said would be used to design monitoring and enforcement steps. Staff and Essex acknowledged that DBI had identified four units that cannot be retained for safety or code reasons; Essex committed to work to place affected tenants elsewhere in the Bennett Lofts properties when feasible.

Several commissioners said they supported approving the permits to preserve housing stock but asked for a short, enforceable timeline for bringing remaining live‑work units into compliance (suggested windows ranged from 12 months to 3 years) and for periodic status reports back to the commission. Commissioner Richards said displacement was his primary concern and urged a plan that avoids putting residents on the street.

After discussion the commission voted 5‑0 not to take discretionary review and to approve the permits as proposed. Commissioners directed staff and the sponsor to develop implementation steps, monitoring, and periodic memos to the commission on progress toward compliance and on any DBI‑identified relocations.