Latest news with #DepartmentofBuildingInspection
San Francisco Chronicle
30-05-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
New S.F. data is most detailed yet on how long it takes to move through city's notorious permit process
The time it takes to get approval to build something in San Francisco has fallen since a number of streamlining measures were implemented last year — but some departments still struggle to meet the city's new target times. That's according to new data compiled by the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection, which is published in a new dashboard tracking the processes as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie's PermitSF initiative. The effort aims to simplify the city's notoriously long and often convoluted permitting process. The dashboard includes two main components: one tracks the median number of days it takes to get through the entire planning or building process, and the other breaks down how long the planning and building departments each take to complete their steps in the process. Together, the dashboard and underlying data provide more transparency into San Francisco's permitting process than previously existed. Using the data, a Chronicle analysis found that the time it takes to approve a project or issue a permit has sped up in recent years. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that the city made 'significant changes' to the planning and building review processes starting in January 2024, in response to state law as well as local changes under former Mayor London Breed. The time spent in both planning and building dropped after those changes were implemented, the data show. Planning approval plummeted from a median of 222 to 133 days, and building went from a median of 258 to 209. So far this year, the median times are on track to be even faster. Within the process, each step now has its own target for how long it's supposed to take — a metric dubbed the 'shot clock' in a press release from Lurie's administration. Such goals 'make the process more predictable for homeowners and businesses' and hold departments accountable for any delays, the release said. The target times went into effect this month. So far, according to the dashboard, the city seems to be faring well: Over the last year, though the targets had not yet been set, the building department completed tasks within the target window most of the time, and the planning department only missed its target for resubmission reviews. Still, that doesn't mean that all projects and permits are suddenly sailing through: In both the planning and the building departments, nearly 30% of permits took longer than the target 30 days to get through a first review. Missed target times will be incorporated into staff performance plans, according to Lurie's office. The metrics don't measure any time spent on required pre-application neighborhood outreach, which can add significant delays to projects. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that in July 2023, the city removed the pre-application requirement for most projects, although some bigger projects, like new construction or additions over a certain size still need it. Additionally, the total time metric for planning approval does not include checking whether the application is complete, a process that can take multiple rounds of submittals to the city. That metric is measured, however, in the planning department's 'shot clock' dashboard, with a target time of 21 days. The new data also reveal how long permits spend at each 'review station,' or city departments that need to check various permits for safety and code compliance. While the complexity of what each department must review varies with each project, some hit the city's new targets more often than others. A number of stations fell behind in the first review stage, which is when a plan is first checked for compliance (the city sets a 30-day target for these), but most hit the target for rechecks, or reviews of plans that have been revised, over the last year (a 14-day target). Of departments that completed at least 200 reviews from May 2024 and through April 2025, only one missed the target on most projects for both first reviews and rechecks: the Bureau of Urban Forestry, which handles permits on street trees and foliage. (Because the targets are new, the Bureau of Urban Forestry was not technically held to these targets over the 12 months ending in April, but has been starting this month.) In an email, Chris Heredia, a spokesperson for the Bureau, said that slower response times are due to a 'staffing issue,' as inspectors, who are also tasked both with upkeep of existing city trees, can only allocate about 20% of their time to permits. 'San Franciscans want trees with new construction,' he wrote, noting that construction, and the load on inspectors, had seen an uptick. 'We don't have an adequate number of urban forestry inspectors to meet the demand.' Still, he said that review times had improved in recent months.
San Francisco Chronicle
12-05-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
First wave of fixes to S.F. permitting red tape would help bars and nightclubs
Mayor Daniel Lurie floated the first reforms in his promised overhaul of San Francisco's famously convoluted permitting process on Monday, proposing to cut red tape for bar and nightclub owners looking to extend hours or offer live music. Speaking at the annual Nightlife and Entertainment Summit, Lurie told a room full of nightclub owners and impresarios that the reforms would make 'permitting faster, more predictable and more transparent.' Lurie said he plans to introduce legislation next week that would eliminate the need for Planning Department approvals for two types of permits: limited live performance and fixed-place amplified sound. About 60 of these types of permits were sent to the Planning Department during the last fiscal year, which cost about $12,000. In addition, businesses will no longer need the Department of Building Inspection approval for permits for entertainment and extended hours. The changes will shave 30 days from the approval process. 'You are the visionaries and operators who help this city shine after dark,' said Lurie. 'Our job at City Hall and in government is to create the conditions for your success. We want people off the couches, and I want them in your bars and on your dance floors.' The modest changes are the start of an initiative Lurie is calling PermitSF, which the mayor has promised will speed up approval for housing and small businesses and improve permit tracking technology. Lurie also vowed to implement a 'shot clock' that would limit the amount of time that the city can review permits, potentially ending instances where applications languish for months or years. 'We are going to be cutting red tape by ensuring that entertainment permits only go to the departments that actually need to review them,' said Lurie. 'That means no unnecessary reviews from planning or building inspection when they are not relevant.' In mid-February, Lurie said the reforms would be introduced within 100 days. While the streamlining would only cut a few of the dozens of bureaucratic sign-offs bar and nightclub owners have to deal with, business owners at the entertainment summit applauded the proposed changes. David Kiely, who owns Mars Bar in SoMa, said making it easier and faster to obtain permits 'is tantamount to our economic survival.' He said Mars Bar is currently trying to extend its hours and get special entertainment permits. 'It's what we need,' said Kiely. 'Anything we can do that is going to draw people to come in and have events is only going to help us.' Entertainment Commission President Ben Bleiman said at the summit that the city's permitting process for bars and nightclubs is 'a hodgepodge of rules overlapped on one another.' The regulations change from neighborhood to neighborhood, often driven by complaints from residents. 'There was no vision or forward thinking on how these things were put together,' he said. 'These things are extremely frustrating for us and more importantly, frustrating for our faith in our government. If we don't believe our government works, everything falls apart.'
San Francisco Chronicle
09-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Despite good experience, S.F.'s building department is still problem-plagued. Here's a fix
Regarding 'Entrepreneur visited S.F.'s notorious building department 80 times in 6 months: 'I got so much support' ' (San Francisco, May 4): I'm happy to hear that Vy Tran had a good experience working with San Francisco's Department of Building Inspection on her escape room project. On my one trip there, I too found the staff to be helpful. However, the story also points outs the department's glaring shortcomings, namely that 'a typical multifamily applicant waits 627 days after approvals to obtain a full set of permits' and that 'the city's building code is 1,000 pages, with decades of lawmakers layering on requirement after requirement, while rarely getting rid of obsolete codes.' Is this any way to run a city, or should I say ruin a city? I propose that Mayor Daniel Lurie create a task force to whittle the city's building code down to something closer to the size of an average novel (300 to 400 pages), then assign it as a summer reading assignment to his entire staff. Stan Barnett, San Francisco Supervisor deserves recall Regarding 'Did S.F. moderates 'rile up' Chinese Americans on recalls only to abandon them?' (Opinion, May 4): Residents of San Francisco's District 4 are pretty forgiving: We didn't recall two supervisors who ended up in prison or those who voted in ways we disagreed with. But previous supervisors met with residents in public meetings, heard their arguments, openly informed them ahead of time what they were planning and took the heat for their decisions. Supervisor Joel Engardio did none of these when he decided to ditch the widely accepted weekend closure compromise to support entirely closing the Great Highway. It's not just that Engardio proposed and endorsed Proposition K; it's the underhanded way he went about it that amounts to what many in the Sunset consider 'high crimes and misdemeanors' — to the point where a recall is warranted. We can't wait until the next election. He doesn't think he did anything wrong, so he'll ignore us again with future important issues affecting our lives. The Chinese American Democratic Club is quite correct, as quoted in the article, Engardio, 'has shown us time and time again that he isn't a leader.' We need a supervisor now who honorably represents District 4. John Higgins, San Francisco Product misrepresented Regarding 'How to know if a charity can be trusted with your money? This one thing can tell you' (No-Nonsense Money, May 4): Cecilia Diem, director of the Center for Civil Society, claims in the story that Charity Navigator's ratings only indicate the financial transparency of nonprofit groups. This misrepresents our comprehensive evaluation framework, which specifically addresses leadership quality and operational effectiveness. Our Encompass Rating System includes assessments across four areas influencing nonprofit success, and only one focuses on finance. Diem also incorrectly claims that Charity Navigator's ratings 'aren't going to tell you anything about leadership or operations.' Our team relies on IRS research and analysis and evaluates organizational effectiveness using evidence-backed metrics. Our Causeway Initiative offers estate planning solutions that leverage Charity Navigator's rating to ensure donations remain effective and aligned with donors' intentions. While we appreciate the Chronicle's focus on informed charitable giving, perpetuating misconceptions about nonprofit evaluation tools undermines donors' ability to make truly educated giving decisions. Michael Thatcher, president and CEO, Charity Navigator, New York Be vigilant about tyranny Winston Churchill called the Battle of the Bulge 'the greatest American battle of the war.' It was the last major German offensive launched against the U.S. Army in World War II in a snowbound forest in Belgium during the Christmas season of 1944. In one of the bloodiest battles in the fight against tyranny, the Allied forces prevailed, eventually leading to the surrender by Germany on May 8, 1945, Victory in Europe Day. In celebrating the 80th anniversary of this historic capitulation, Americans and Europeans would be wise to recognize that tyranny tends to fester and is never fully vanquished. It feeds on the indifference and passivity of those who would allow the emergence of an autocrat to go unchecked. Jane Larkin, Tampa, Fla.
CBS News
08-04-2025
- CBS News
San Francisco City Attorney orders Chinatown SRO owners to pay $810K over unsafe units
The owners of three single room occupancy (SRO) hotels in San Francisco's Chinatown have been ordered to pay over $800,000 and must make repairs to settle a lawsuit over health and safety violations, officials said. City Attorney David Chiu announced Tuesday the settlement agreement involving Jeff Appenrodt, Shailendra Devdhara, Kamlesh Patel and five of their companies. The three own SRO hotels at 1449 Powell Street, 790 Vallejo Street and 912 Jackson Street. Chiu had sued the owners of the properties, which contain 85 authorized rooms, in 2023. "Let this be a lesson to all landlords who profit off of the suffering of their tenants," Chiu said in a statement . "In San Francisco, there are consequences for depriving tenants of a safe and healthy place to live." Officials said multiple city departments have issued notices of violation on the properties since 2018 for health, safety and building violations. The owners also illegally converted, combined or added unauthorized SRO rooms. Violations listed by the City Attorney's Office include unpermitted work, broken plumbing, exposed wiring, insect and rodent infestations, mold and mildew and unsanitary shared restrooms. Inspectors also issued violation notices for lack of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, insufficient emergency exits, along with damaged paint with lead risks. "This settlement demonstrates San Francisco's commitment to protecting tenants and our willingness to use all available means to pursue landlords who have allowed their buildings to deteriorate into an unsafe condition," said Patrick O'Riordan, director of the city's Department of Building Inspection. Chiu said the owners of the Powell Street property must pay $780,000 in civil penalties and abate the four remaining notices of violation at the property. Patel, who purchased the Vallejo Street and Jackson Street properties in 2023 and is not involved with the Powell Street property, was ordered to pay $30,000.
