When they found the apartment on San Bruno Avenue in San Francisco in 2017, Kwong Ying Yu, then 79, and his wife Kam To, 71, were thrilled.
The complex seemed affordable, taking advantage of Section 8 vouchers that subsidize low-income people to live in off-the-shelf buildings. The couple speaks no English and their new landlords were Chinese.
“We didn’t think long,” Yu said while his daughter translated.
The former restaurant worker and his wife moved in, happy to find a home in San Francisco that he could afford and that would allow him to be close to his daughter and other relatives.
But Yu soon realized that his new apartment in the Portola district was too good to be true. His landlords had flouted the city’s building codes, resulting in unsafe living conditions for Yu and his neighbors – many of whom are monolingual and on low incomes.
The owners illegally built 29 housing units in a row of adjacent buildings on San Bruno Avenue when they had been allowed to build 10 and failed to build a required second exit for tenants, creating a potential fire trap, authorities said.
After years of negotiations with city officials, building owners were given permission by the city’s planning commission on Thursday to begin work to legalize the troubled lot at the 2800 block of San Bruno Avenue.
The move is the latest in a fiasco that has now lasted a decade. Owners Tam Yin Kwan, Lee Yun Ling, Cindy Zhou, Tong Yin Kai Ton and Dufin Tsang first received permits in 2013 for five four-story buildings that would have included retail and office space and 10 apartments.
The project became a scandal after a corrupt senior building inspector failed to properly approve the final inspection of the property in 2017. In 2018, inspectors investigated a complaint and found that the building’s owners had defected and built a project that was inconsistent with what was approved.
For example, in 2018, investigators found that developers had built 30 dwelling units in the buildings, dividing larger dwelling units into smaller ones; and conversion of office space into other housing. Contractors had installed electrical wiring and plumbing without proper permits; and it was also unclear whether the site, which was built on a former gas station, was safe from contamination at all. Officials said the owners engaged in “extensive unlawful construction” without permits and deviated from approved plans regarding the facade, design features, parking lots, stairs, toilets, driveways and landscaping.
Investigators also discovered that a now-disgraced city official had signed off on the building’s final inspection without conducting other necessary building inspections. The officer, former senior inspector Bernard Curran, has pleaded guilty to corruption charges and is awaiting sentencing in federal court.
Ryan Patterson, an attorney representing the owners of the troubled project, declined to say Thursday why his clients deviated from the plans they initially showed the city, but said his clients were “backed up.” Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations is required to ensure the security and long-term success of the property.”
He said that after the city raised concerns about the project, his team “submitted at least 22 separate building plans, including a carefully constructed proposal to legalize and ensure safety for virtually all housing units built.”
“It is unfortunate that the proposal was rejected,” he said, “but we look forward to completing the work required and appreciate that today’s proposal has been approved.”
At Thursday’s hearing, the commissioners expressed shock at the project, including new revelations that the developers had apparently not completed the soil reduction required at the former gas station site.
The commissioners eventually agreed to approve the developer’s application for a conditional occupancy permit, which would allow them to obtain the necessary permits to begin refurbishing the units in a manner consistent with the project’s original proposal. While some tenants have moved out and their units are vacant, at least 40 people still live in the buildings.
Commission Vice President Kathrin Moore said it would likely take years to complete the work.
“We’re talking loosely another 3 to 4 years, if not longer, before anyone can consider moving back into these units,” she said, calling the situation “completely untenable.”
The scandal comes amid an ongoing public corruption probe into the San Francisco government that has resulted in criminal charges against more than a dozen former city officials, local developers, permitting officers and other contractors. It highlights the challenges the city faces in providing adequate housing for its most vulnerable residents, while holding bad actors accountable and deterring future fraudulent behavior.
“These owners have completely disregarded the process and now a lot of people are losing their homes,” said Mark Hooshmand, an attorney representing dozens of tenants at the property.
Neighborhood residents are angry, said Alex Hobbs of the Portola Neighborhood Association. When developers first unveiled their plans for the project, residents in the neighborhood hoped it would be a much-needed investment in a community that had long felt overlooked. But it soon became clear that the developers were building something completely different from what was approved.
“It was clear that the concept was to fill as many units as possible with as many people as possible because the city wasn’t going to kick them out because we’re in a housing crisis,” Hobbs said. “That’s what happens. People who are fighting for their homeland live there. But if you let that happen, the developers win.”
Hobbs argued that the potentially unsafe building should be demolished and the residents relocated at the owners’ expense.
“It is very disturbing that this building has not been condemned and demolished,” he said.
The city has tried to clean up the mess by holding owners accountable and protecting tenants living on the property.
“These buildings had far more people living in them than the code allows for, how they were designed, approved or built,” Patrick Hannan, spokesman for the Department of Building Inspection, said in an email. Inspectors eventually found 16 violations and estimated $27,000 in charges for enforcing the code, although more may follow.
The city attorney general sued the developers and eventually settled the lawsuit for $1.2 million.
Inspectors also asked owners to install scaffolding to give tenants a second route out of the building. The scaffolding is there and has spoiled the streetscape for years.
“This story isn’t over yet,” said Dan Sider, chief of staff for the city’s planning department. “The settlement is part of that puzzle – there will clearly be a significant cost to the developer to fix this. Possibly through legal costs, construction costs or the tenant move.”
Residents sued the owners last month, citing negligence and breach of contract, alleging that homes “were built in substandard conditions and many lack warmth” and arguing that the owners’ failure to rectify breaches of the regulations caused undue stress and anxiety caused.
Superintendents Hillary Ronen and Shamann Walton recently proposed that the city’s affordable housing programs prioritize tenants evicted from illegal housing units.
“With good legal representation and increased ability to access permanent, affordable housing elsewhere in the city,” she said, “tenants will get some justice out of a terrible situation.”
Now the property owners want to restore it to how it was originally supposed to be built. But critics worry that allowing bad actors to do the work is essentially rewarding.
“These guys should be required to provide housing for all the people they lured into their illegal, dangerous units,” Supervisor Aaron Peskin said. “They knew what they were doing. They should have to face the consequences.”
Contact St. John Barned-Smith: stjohn.smith@sfchronicle.com
