The Standard’s Joel Umanzor answers a reader question sent to Ask The Standard: Why do San Francisco businesses and residents rely on permit expediters?

San Francisco is famous for red tape.

The city’s construction permit system has a reputation among residents, contractors and engineers as being lengthy and complicated to manage.

Anyone who wants to do any work that goes “beyond painting, flooring, replacement of electrical receptacles, switches or light fixtures and repair or replacement of faucets” must obtain permits, according to the Department of Building Inspection.

The majority of commercial or residential permits are classified as “over the counter” while the remainder would be considered “full” or “site” permits, which require in-house reviews unlike “over the counter” due to the structural nature of the work.

Many people with complex projects opt to hire an “expediter”—“an individual who receives or is promised compensation to provide permit consulting services” on projects that would be classified as either major or minor, according to the city’s Ethics Commission. This can also include any person who is paid for time spent providing permit consulting services.

Currently, 107 permit consultants are registered with the city, with 87 of those registered consultants representing only one client, city data shows.

In recent years, corruption cases against top officials across city government have brought to light a history of favoritism and corruption that festered for years ahead of the indictments, according to a City Controller’s Office report from 2021. At the ongoing scandal’s center is businessman and permit expediter Walter Wong, who pleaded guilty in 2020 to federal fraud and money laundering charges, agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors with his testimony.

READ MORE: These Are the Players in San Francisco’s Corruption Scandal

The Standard spoke to former officials and experts about permit expediters.

Walter Wong leaves federal court in San Francisco on June 30, 2023. | Source: Isaac Ceja/The Standard

Most Famous Permit Expediter

The process of overseeing permit expediters who don’t fall within the “consultant” category, which requires registration, can be difficult, former Ethics Commissioner Larry Bush said. A lack of transparency in the disclosure of clients or projects differentiates the permit consultants from lobbyists, who must also register.

Without the information provided in required quarterly consultant reports, Bush said, all kinds of unregulated expediter activity can occur.

“It’s not like being a lobbyist, where you have to register and disclose specifically who you are doing this with and for how much money,” Bush said. “It is all pretty much under the radar.” 

Bush said he tried to pass a motion within the commission to require that information be publicly disclosed because he often found former city workers wanted to profit from their experience and offer themselves as knowledgeable consultants. The motion did not pass.

Wong was found to have received preferential treatment from Tom Hui, Department of Building Inspection’s former director, who had the opportunity to override the department’s control for Wong’s projects by “expediting permits and inspections and overlooking otherwise problematic issues in permitting and inspections,” the city controller’s report found. 

Hui stepped down from the position in 2020.

In 2021, Wong and his companies, W. Wong Construction Co. Inc., Green Source Trading LLC and Alternate Choice LLC, were barred from doing business with the city for five years, the maximum permitted by law.

Although Wong is barred from doing business with the city, his name remains on the Ethics Commission’s website as a registered permit expediter for Jaidin Consulting Group.

According to his settlement agreement with the city, Wong received an estimated $1,291,095.26 for “goods and services provided through non-competitive contracts, purchase orders, and/or grants that were improperly approved by City officials.”

He received anywhere from $1,000 to $75,000 from different clients, filings show.

Piping sits at a construction site at 198 McAllister St. in San Francisco’s Tenderloin on Sept. 26, 2022. | Source: Justin Katigbak/The Standard

Problematic Process?

Christopher Calton, a research fellow for housing and homelessness at Oakland’s Independent Institute, called permit expediters part of a larger discretionary process of local government that often restricts economic growth.

“These are officials who have some discretionary authority and can push things through some of the bureaucratic red tape ahead of the formal processes that are so drawn out and lengthy,” Calton said. “Permit expediter is an informal term we use because of stories like this corruption scandal, but it’s not an official position. It’s a service, kind of like doing your taxes with TurboTax.”

The bigger problem, Calton said, is not the regulatory code but that anyone can request a discretionary review—a second look at a development project—that often takes up lots of time and opens the door for possible favoritism and abuses of power.

Because of this, permit expediters—although not uncommon around the country—have a unique position within the ecosystem of getting permits in San Francisco.

“It means you have to give that discretion to somebody,” Calton said. “Once you do that, it is not just a matter that a permit expediter isn’t necessarily just somebody who helps someone navigate the intricacies of the law—we have that all over the country in all industries for better or worse—it’s that they then can sell their services in a roundabout way.”

The post Why Are Allow Expediters Wanted To Minimize San Francisco’s Crimson Tape? appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The Scarlet Sage Herb Co., a nearly 30-year-old small business, has found itself on the verge of closure just three months after reopening in a new location in San Francisco’s Fillmore District.

According to owner Laura Ash, onerous city bureaucracy has dried up a key source of the business’ revenue: bulk dried herbs.

Earlier this month, the San Francisco Department of Public Health issued a cease-and-desist order to the store, prohibiting Scarlet Sage from selling herbs until it fulfills the requirements for a food permit. 

Having joined the company as an employee in 2009, Ash took over as owner in 2015 and has operated Scarlet Sage since then. The store is known for its focus on wellness, holistic medicine and witchery. Think tarot cards, healing crystals and sacred talismans. 

After a 28-year run on Valencia Street in the city’s Mission District, the store moved to its new location at 1903 Fillmore St. earlier this summer. Ash said a number of factors spurred her to relocate, including low foot traffic, increasing crime and difficulties renegotiating a lease with her landlord. 

After a pricey build-out, Scarlet Sage opened its doors in July. Business in the new location was slowly picking up just as the store was hit with what Ash called “an existential threat.” 

A Department of Public Health inspector visited the location in response to a complaint that scoops were being washed in the bathroom sink. Ash noted that the bathroom is currently the only source of running water available in the store, and the utensils were taken out to the herb table for further sanitizing and drying.

In Scarlet Sage’s previous location, a hand-washing sink outside the bathroom was used to clean utensils. Ash said the business was in the process of saving the funds necessary to add a similar appliance in the new location.

Ash said when she explained her situation, she was told to get an official food permit, the same as any restaurant, bar or bakery. That would require tens of thousands of dollars in additional costs as well as the inclusion of a food prep sink, a mop sink and a three-compartment sink. 

“We’re not heating or preparing food, and what they’re asking for us to do is pay $20,000 to $100,000 to comply by getting a general contractor, preparing an architectural drawing and adding five sinks,” Ash said.

She estimated the store is losing about $1,000 a day from the halt in sales. Although herbs make up only around 10% of the store’s total revenue, they serve as a gateway to bigger-budget purchases. Many customers often leave after seeing that the herbs are no longer for sale, Ash said.

The Department of Public Health confirmed to The Standard that its staff had recently inspected Scarlet Sage, which resulted in a notice to cease and desist food handling of “open (non-prepackaged) food” and to apply for a health permit. In other words, the department considers Scarlet Sage on par with any other business that serves food.

Ash said she has around two weeks of funds left, so she’s readying a fundraising effort to keep the store open as she works out a permanent solution. In the meantime, Ash said she’s working with the city to obtain a permit to package the herbs in her home kitchen.

“I’m asking for time, resources and support to comply with these new laws,” Ash said. “Let’s work on a solution together. That’s how we move forward.”

The public health department said it offered education first and will work directly with Scarlet Sage on its options, such as temporarily renting a commercial kitchen space to handle and package the merchandise and transport it back to the store for sale.

Some small-business owners are warily watching this play out and debating the idea of categorizing herb stores as restaurants. Kenny Lau, an herb store owner in Chinatown and the chairman of the Chinese Herb Trade Association of America, estimated that 90% of the herb stores in Chinatown do not have an independent sink outside of the bathroom.

“Some of the old buildings in Chinatown are not feasible to make the changes,” Lau said in Cantonese. “And a sink would cost at least $20,000.”

Lau acknowledged that certain sanitation rules should be followed to the letter of the law. But herb stores should not be required for any special permit unless they are importing rare herbs from overseas, he said.

The health department explained that it did not target Scarlet Sage but is required to investigate complaints received with respect to potential health code violations.

Supervisor Dean Preston, who represents the district where Scarlet Sage is located, said he’s aware of the issue but has not heard back from the health department for further clarification.

“My office is committed to helping small businesses recover from the pandemic,” Preston said. “[The department] should be more forthcoming about their enforcement priorities and reasons for demanding costly changes at a time when small businesses are struggling to survive.”

Ash agreed with Lau and argued for a new category for businesses like hers—one that would include herbal medicine shops, tea shops and bulk candy retailers—to balance public health protections with the realities of operating a small business.

“For me, this is a survival story, and it’s not been easy,” she said. “This is a whole other level of bureaucracy that I’ve never seen before.”

The post Common San Francisco Herb Store Criticizes Metropolis’s Crimson Tape appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

As executive director of the Mission Housing Development Corp., Sam Moss exclusively builds 100% affordable housing for the most vulnerable San Franciscans. Given the drumbeat of calls from all corners of the city for more subsidized low-income housing, one might expect the city to welcome his work with open arms.

That’s not the case at all.

“The entire housing process is a complete nightmare,” Moss said. “San Francisco has a unique ability to find the most inventive ways to step on its own toes and prevent itself from providing its most needed services.”

Each housing project Moss has developed in San Francisco has faced the same agonizing hurdles: months of preliminary coordination meetings followed by years of negotiations, paperwork and meetings to receive project approval — only to then be faced with an onslaught of permits before finally breaking ground.

Mayor London Breed blames the Board of Supervisors for obstructing housing. The supervisors in turn blame City Hall for not supporting enough affordable housing. The reality, however, is that all bodies have a role to play in fixing the status quo.

That’s because the core of San Francisco’s housing problem isn’t politics, it’s bureaucracy.

Decades of compounding bad policies that have resulted in impenetrable red tape that can — and often does — kill housing projects in San Francisco. Including affordable housing.

“What people don’t realize is that nonprofit housing projects have to be completed within 18 months of building permit approval, or we risk losing affordable housing bonds,” Moss said.

And yet the median time for securing approval to build in San Francisco is 627 days — which puts 50% of projects at risk of losing funding due to delays.

The outcomes speak for themselves.

In 2021, San Francisco issued permits for just 2,000 homes, and in 2022 there was similarly anemic building activity. By contrast, Seattle — a city of comparable size — issued more than 10,000 permits.

SFNext is Chronicle coverage devoted to the city’s most vexing problems.

Where should we go from here? Send your ideas to sfnext@SFChronicle.com. We’ll publish the best ideas we receive.

Have questions for Bilal Mahmood? He’s ready to answer them. Join him on Tuesday at 6 p.m. on SFNext’s new conversation forum, Discord (sign-up required).

San Francisco recently submitted and passed an impressive version of the state-mandated plan known as a housing element: The city says it will build more than 80,000 homes in eight years, or 10,000 homes per year. But state planners are not convinced San Francisco will live up to this promise. And a deep study of the city’s housing bureaucracy provides an answer as to why.

To understand the sweep of the problem, it is necessary to dive into the leviathan that is San Francisco’s city government. It took me several months of interviews with developers, commissioners, housing advocates and academics to fully understand the bottleneck of bureaucracy surrounding housing: a compounding set of confounding procedures that necessitates securing at least 87 permits, enduring 1,000 days for meetings and paying more than  $500,000 in fees on average for any residential project. In combination, these procedures make nearly all housing projects financially infeasible to build in San Francisco.

1,000 days for meetings

Any attempt to build housing in San Francisco starts with meetings. Lots of meetings. Of course the San Francisco Planning Department will want to have its say. So will the Mayor’s Office of Disability and the Fire Department — among others.

There are two phases of housing development. The first is the project approval — or entitlement — phase. This requires meeting with the San Francisco Planning Department to prepare application forms simply requesting permission to build. In San Francisco, housing projects face a median wait time of more than 450 days for this entitlement.

The second phase is called the building permit — or post-entitlement — phase. This is when developers apply for permits to build. Combined with the project approval stage, the time to complete permitting often stretches to over three years, according to data published in San Francisco’s housing element. That’s more than 1,000 days before a housing project can even begin construction.

To understand the bottlenecks, let’s break down the process.

It can take 600 days to finish approvals for housing in San Francisco.

Amy Lee

There are six phases to housing development in San Francisco:

Steps 1 and 2 involve preliminary project assessments (which take 60 days) and project application filings (about 30 days) to the Planning Department that detail the overall housing project.

Steps 3 and 4 entail the preliminary application review (which takes about 90 days) where the Planning Department conducts checks of residential, streets and urban design planning, followed by any project refinements (typically another 30 days).

Step 5 is the final project analysis where comprehensive plan and design checks, and environmental reviews are conducted (which can take at least 180 days).

Finally, Step 6 is where after receiving an official project approval, the developer can apply for building permits to begin construction (but it can take over 600 days).

Why does navigating these steps take so long?

In part because San Francisco is the only major city in California with a city charter that mandates that all permits are “discretionary” and, by consequence, appealable. This simple rule has far-reaching consequences.

“In most cities, building permits follow what is called ‘ministerial’ approval — where if a project is code compliant, the permits will be approved, often in months,” said Rachael Tanner, president of the San Francisco Planning Commission. “The issue in San Francisco is that because all permits are discretionary, a governing body like the Board of Supervisors can weigh in — or a single resident can ask for the Planning Commission or for the Board of Appeals to take a closer look. This can literally add years to even the simplest projects.”

San Francisco’s discretionary process allows for two obstructionist tactics.

The first is that it enables a neighborhood organization or a single person to file a notice to the Planning Department requesting a delay of the project during the project approval stage or to file a notice to the Board of Appeals at the building permit stage.

CEQA appeals can add more time to building housing in San Francisco

Amy Lee

The recent housing project at 870 Union St. is a case study that is part of San Francisco’s housing element. A preliminary project assessment was filed in October 2015. Less than a year later, the project filed and received approval for most of its paperwork. But in September 2016, an appeal was filed by a neighborhood resident, triggering hearings and further meetings with the Planning Commission. The project wasn’t approved until May 2017 — more than 200 days later.

San Francisco abounds with such examples of projects delayed by neighborhood input. The cumulative impact was a 123-day median delay in the housing approval process in 2021, according to San Francisco’s Housing Element.

San Francisco is also the only city in California that allows such building permit appeals even after a project has received all its approvals. Assembly Member Matt Haney of San Francisco recently introduced AB1114, which would ban this practice. But even if that ban is implemented, a second obstructionist tactic still emerges from San Francisco’s discretionary system — a delay induced by the California Environmental Quality Act.

A well-intentioned 1970 law, known as CEQA, initiates a process requiring technical studies, environmental notices and additional hearings to evaluate and disclose to the public the environmental impact of any discretionary action by local government. Thanks to San Francisco’s charter, that includes housing projects. Housing experts note that the sheer volume of studies and meetings required to even consider a CEQA filing results in a median 122-day delay to projects. And if deemed necessary, an actual environmental impact report can take a median of 700 days to complete, according to San Francisco’s housing element.

In essence, because all permits in San Francisco are discretionary, every housing project becomes a political battle.

This is what happened at 469 Stevenson St., where developers sought to build 495 units of housing on a Nordstrom valet parking lot, only to be delayed more than a year when the Board of Supervisors rejected the project’s environmental analysis for what many critics argued were spurious reasons.

San Francisco’s extensively broad application of CEQA necessitates conducting more than 5,000 reviews per year. This intensive level of environmental review is not cheap. According to the 2022 update to San Francisco’s housing element, around 40 full-time planners are employed just to work on these reviews.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

San Francisco can simply follow the example of cities like San Jose, Mountain View and Santa Clara, which employ a split permitting process. 

In this split process, the planning approval is discretionary while building permit approval is ministerial. This streamlines the approval process and avoids unnecessary discretionary stopgaps.

“Bifurcating the planning and building permit process will create a clear and discernible path for applicants to see what is required of their project,” says Raquel Bito, president of San Francisco’s Building Inspection Commission.

Indeed, the Department of Building Inspection formally first reviewed such a proposal in August —  and is now investigating mechanisms to streamline.

We actually can see the potential impact of ministerial approval in place today. In 2017, a bill authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, SB35, was signed into law and it enabled ministerial approval at both the project approval and building permit stages for projects that feature 50% or more affordable housing.

The 555 Bryant St. housing development in San Francisco benefited from SB35 — a preliminary project application was filed in January 2021 and the project was fully approved within 175 business days — roughly half the time of the 870 Union St. project.

“Ministerial approval isn’t just important, it’s an absolutely essential tool if San Francisco is to meet its goal of building 82,000 homes in the next eight years,” said Wiener, who is introducing SB423, which would renew SB35 and make it even more effective.

The solution here is clear — build by ministerial approval. It works, even sometimes in San Francisco.

87 permits and $500,000 in fees

Just because a housing project is approved doesn’t workers can start building. It merely means the project has permission to apply for permits to start building.

In San Francisco, that process takes a median of 627 days. Worse yet, 270 projects during the past 10 years have taken more than four years to get all their permits. This is the slowest approval time for permits in any major city in California. It’s 400 days longer than Oakland and 300 days longer than Berkeley.

Where’s the breakdown?

The issue is bureaucracy. Namely, the 87 permits San Francisco’s housing element identified that a project needs to apply for in order to begin development: 15 permits from the Planning Commission, 26 permits from the Public Utilities Commission and Fire Department, 19 permits from the Department of Building Inspection, 17 permits from the Public Works and 10 other permits related to public spaces.

With 87 permits across multiple departments, it’s easy to see how San Francisco’s bureaucracy is slowing housing development to a crawl.

Why does San Francisco require so many permits? Part of the problem is redundancy. Of the 87 permits listed, at least 12 pertain to issues of water regulations, issued separately by the Public Utilities Commission, Department of Building Inspection and Public Works.

And it isn’t just the sheer number of permits. San Francisco forces developers to receive each set of permits sequentially — you can apply for a set of permits only after you have completed the previous set. With 87 permits, the time compounds.

Compare that to San Jose, which has only 57 permits and allows for parallel review of both the planning and permitting phases. According to Bito, this allows builders to receive feedback more readily from all requisite departments (like Public Works and the Fire Department), potentially shaving months of waiting.

Permitting in San Francisco isn’t just time-consuming, though, it’s expensive.

Permitting fees — specifically, what the Department of Building Inspection charges for a housing project — are proportional to the cost of construction. The challenge here is the unpredictability of those costs.

Labor and material prices are constantly changing. The longer a project is delayed in the approval or building permit phases, the higher likelihood that market conditions change and materials costs have risen, and the higher the city’s fees.

Furthermore, during the time developers are applying for permits, they incur significant costs to hold the land they plan to use.

San Francisco’s development process is also loaded with what are called “impact fees” — or fixed fees to get project approval. These impact fees cover the cost of providing public services like schools, water, transportation and public art investments in a neighborhood. But when added to the litany of other direct and indirect costs San Francisco imposes on development, they can make projects infeasible.

All told, housing development projects over $25 million can in turn incur at least $500,000 in combined impact and permitting fees, according to San Francisco’s Housing Element. This can add up to $74,000 in costs to an individual apartment or condo in San Francisco, compared to $39,000 per unit in Oakland, $54,000 per unit in Emeryville and $62,000 per unit in San Jose.

The result of these astronomical costs in San Francisco makes housing projects risky or infeasible to build. Only the most monied developers, therefore, have access to the market — and they focus on expensive high-rises to improve the odds of recouping their investments.

A path forward

If a housing project has to sequentially wade through 87 permits, pay $500,000 in impact and permitting fees and endure 1,000 days of meetings simply to break ground, it will be a tall order for San Francisco to build 10,000 houses per year as stated in our state-mandated housing element. We can’t even build 2,000 a year today.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can be a city with abundant, affordable housing, where unhoused populations can find stable homes, where San Francisco’s workers can live near their jobs, and where people and families of all stripes can make this city their home.

To move forward, however, we need to radically reform our housing approval processes. We need to transition housing approvals away from discretionary reviews — like every other major city in California.

State legislation like Assembly Member Haney’s AB1114 and state Sen. Wiener’s SB423 are necessary steps to get us there. But they are insufficient on their own.

San Francisco also needs to streamline permitting to allow for parallel processing and a reduction in impact fees. This is largely in the domain of Mayor Breed’s office, and executive action here is necessary. Her Housing For All executive order, which requests that all departments streamline permitting by 50% within a year, is a great step in the right direction.

But setting broad goals is just a start. San Francisco needs decisive action.

Bilal Mahmood is a civil servant and entrepreneur, and a board member at SF YIMBY.

The post How crimson tape and forms gas San Francisco’s housing disaster appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

MLB’s most sought-after free agent, Aaron Judge, has touched down in San Francisco.

A video captured Judge upon arrival, where he gave an interesting remark about what he’s doing in town.

“Visiting some family and friends, that’s about it. That’s about it,” he said winking to the camera.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

Bronx, NY: New York Yankees first baseman Anthony Rizzo and New York Yankees center fielder Aaron Judge in the dugout in the 3rd inning in game 4 of the ALCS at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, New York on Oct 23, 2022.
(Photo by Thomas A. Ferrara/Newsday RM via Getty Images)

Judge is from Linden Calif., which is about 90 minutes away from San Francisco where the Giants, a team connected to the 2022 AL MVP in free agency, plays. Judge also grew up a Giants fan during his days of terrorizing baseball teams while playing for Linden High School and Fresno State, eventually being selected by the New York Yankees in the first round of the 2013 MLB Draft.

So what exactly does Judge’s “friends and family” have planned?

“We got something,” he said smiling.

AFTER YANKEES’ ANTHONY RIZZO OPTS TO STAY IN BRONX, HE LOBBIES FOR AARON JUDGE TO RETURN

Looking to best the Los Angeles Dodgers in the NL West, the Giants are looking to make a splash, and there would be none better than a homegrown product like Judge. And while there are many other suitors, including the Yankees, San Fran do have money to spend.

According to Spotrac, the Giants have the 14th-highest payroll in MLB at $95.95 million right now.

On the other hand, teams like the Yankees and New York Mets are at the top of the bunch and still willing to open their check books for Judge’s services.

New York Yankees right fielder Aaron Judge runs to the dugout during the sixth inning of the team’s baseball game against the Baltimore Orioles on Saturday, Oct. 1, 2022, in New York.
(AP Photo/Adam Hunger)

Anthony Rizzo, who recently re-signed with the Yankees on a two-year deal, lobbied for his clubhouse buddy in Judge to head back to the Bronx.

“I hope Judge stays just for the sake of the game,” Rizzo said Wednesday, “because you see a lot of franchise icons not getting what they deserve for the team that they have done so much for.”

Rizzo has even said Judge deserves to be the next Yankees captain if he re-signs.

ROB MANFRED ‘ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT’ YANKEES, METS DID NOT COLLUDE IN AARON JUDGE SWEEPSTAKES

But the offers will be steep following his MVP campaign, and it may come down to who outbids the rest of the field. Will the Giants step up? Will the Yankees, Mets or maybe even the Dodgers flex their financial muscles?

Judge and his team will find out just how far each team is willing to expand their payroll in the coming weeks.

The 6-foot-7 slugger was named the AL MVP this past Thursday, receiving all but two first-place votes after a season where he set the American League record for most home runs in a single season with 62.

Aaron Judge #99 of the New York Yankees in the first inning in game two of a double header at Globe Life Field on October 4, 2022 in Arlington, Texas.
(Bailey Orr/Texas Rangers/Getty Images)

Other than home runs, he also led the majors in RBI (131), on-base percentage (.425), slugging percentage (.686), runs (133), OPS+ (211) and total bases (391).

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

His 111 walks were tops in the American League, and his .311 batting average ranked second in the AL, putting him in the Triple Crown conversation until the last couple of days of the season.

The post Aaron Decide caught on tape in San Francisco, anticipated to fulfill with Giants appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Serina Calhoun has worked as an architect in San Francisco for 21 years and has faced plenty of headache-inducing projects, but the renovation of a Bernal Heights fixer-upper that she took on in 2020 stands out as truly atrocious.

Many of the city’s worst story lines converged at the seemingly cursed house, leaving Calhoun and the home’s owners slack-jawed by all the plot twists.

It involves insanely high real estate prices. Byzantine planning codes that even the city’s planners find confusing. Neighbors who demand a say in any change near them. Squatters, drugs and vandalism. Police officers who blame the district attorney as they let criminals go. A pricey private security guard. And heaps of frustration.

Sounds like San Francisco, alright.

“This is a whole other level of crazy,” Calhoun said.

It all began in October 2020 when Jennifer Sun and her husband, Ben, purchased a house in Bernal Heights for $1.75 million. In most parts of the country, that would buy a stunning mansion. In San Francisco, it buys a rather dated fixer-upper.

The couple are wealthy, and nobody but them will shed any tears over their home remodel gone awry. Still, what happened next points to what’s broken in San Francisco — and so much is broken.

A sticker, writing on the refrigerator and a sign are some of the damage left over from squatters who trespassed and lived in the home of a Bernal Heights couple.

Lea Suzuki/The Chronicle

The couple hired Calhoun to design a remodel, submitted their plans in March 2021 and hoped to secure permits within six months. They kept paying rent on their South of Market apartment so they could live there during the remodel, while also paying their new mortgage.

But six months turned into 12 months — and still, no permits.

The first hiccup was that the Planning Department said the home had been illegally converted into three units by a previous owner, and the couple wanted to restore it to its original single-family home set-up.

After some back and forth, the Planning Department said the plan was allowable because there was no record of any tenants ever living there.

Dan Sider, chief of staff for the Planning Department, said planners were ready to approve the plans including major interior work in July 2021, but then the couple submitted a proposal with a new wrinkle: extending the back of their home by just under 3 feet . That would make the back of the house even since the third story juts out beyond the lower two.

But this being San Francisco, and especially Bernal Heights, that seemingly small change is a very big deal. That’s because of a “special use district” approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1991 that governs every little change to homes in the neighborhood. The idea was to preserve the area’s character, but the details will make your eyes glaze over and, according to Calhoun, have prompted many architects in the city to refuse to work there.

In sections and subsections to subsections, it governs changes to homes in minute detail — down to the allowable width of curb cuts and garage doors.

“I can assure you that it is not a page-turner,” Sider said good-naturedly.

Jennifer Sun stands below two holes in the ceiling of her home, part of the damage from squatters. She and her husband have had to hire private security while they wait for permits to remodel their new home.

Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle

A group of neighbors called the Bernal Heights East Slope Design Review Board — with no apparent website or easy way to find them — gets to weigh in on projects in the area. An email sent to an address associated with the group was not returned.

The rules include the length of a home can extend into the backyard from the front of its property line. But because the couple’s house sits on a curved lot, Calhoun’s been trying to get an answer on where on the front lot to start measuring from. She said she waited until November just to get a planner assigned and has spoken to four different planners about the 3-foot extension, and that none knows the answer.

“They shared that the code is confusing even for them,” she said.

Then, the planner told Calhoun the home was historic and the facade — though nondescript — could not be altered. Sorting that out would have extended the project by another six to nine months, Calhoun said, so the couple dropped proposed changes to the front.

Then things got really weird.

In February, Calhoun received an email from a member of the Bernal Heights East Slope Design Review Board who reported a neighbor across the street from the couple’s home had grown “increasingly agitated” by the couple’s lifestyle and the cars coming and going from the home at every hour.

Sun said she was shocked. They weren’t living there. What cars? What lifestyle?

So they visited the property, which had weird spray paint across the garage door and signs of people inside. They called police, who accompanied them inside the house where they found squatters had taken it over.

Photos the couple took show piles of furniture, clothes and a fridge full of food. Graffiti covers the refrigerator and walls. One message can’t be relayed in full because of antigay language, but it reads in part, “No soliciting. No shopping. No snitches.” They bashed holes in the walls and ceilings, wrecked a sink and other fixtures, left dog poop on the carpets and discarded needles and syringe caps around the house. Flies were everywhere. The house still smells bad.

According to the couple, police officers gave the squatters — all of whom appeared high — 10 minutes to collect their belongings and leave. They arrested only one. No one else faced any consequences. The couple said police explained there was nothing they could do because District Attorney Chesa Boudin “has different priorities right now” and wouldn’t prosecute.

Salar Naderi, a spokesperson with the Police Department, confirmed police found seven people occupying the house and arrested Richard Ostergard, 47, who had warrants for stealing a vehicle, possession of stolen property and theft. Naderi said the homeowners “did not want to have any of the (other) subjects cited or arrested,” disputing the couple’s version.

In any case, Sun, 36, said that just a few hours later, neighbors texted and called to tell her the squatters were back. And it doesn’t sound like they’re merely people down on their luck. Photos show nice belongings, and neighbors reported them driving a Mercedes, BMW and Dodge Durango.

Neighbors continued to report to the couple that people were entering the home over the next couple of days, and that someone tried to access the property with a crowbar.

The couple quickly hired a private security guard whom they’re paying $8,000 a month to watch over the house every night.

“If we had known the city would take so long, we would have moved in and this wouldn’t be an issue,” Sun said.

Even though they’re doing well professionally, the couple said the costs have created “an immense financial impact” — and work hasn’t even started yet. Mortgage payments and property taxes on the house have topped $180,000 so far. They paid $3,000 to haul away the squatters’ belongings and don’t know yet how much it will cost to repair their damage.

Meanwhile, construction costs keep growing because of inflation and supply chain shortages, and there’s no telling how much the remodel will end up costing or when they can finally start.

“How does anyone afford this?” Sun asked.

Sun said she’s no longer excited about moving in after the remodel — which she thinks won’t be done for another year at best.

“It totally creeps me out,” she said. “Just unlocking the door, I get goose bumps. It’s uncomfortable being in here. It’s so unnerving. This is supposed to be home.”

This being San Francisco, there is one bit of good news for the couple. Redfin says their dream home turned nightmare is now worth more than $2 million.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Heather Knight appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Email: hknight@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @hknightsf

The post How a San Francisco rework became an epic nightmare involving metropolis crimson tape, squatters and cops shrugging off crime appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The corner lot on 17th and Ord Streets in San Francisco’s Tony Corona Heights neighborhood doesn’t look like much. A nondescript, gray, three-story building stands next to a yard with a chain-link fence covered with poorly cared for ivy.

But this property has become a major focal point in San Francisco’s battle for housing – how much of it this city needs, where it should be, and who decides what will be built. When the owner suggested adding four more houses to the site – including two that would be affordable – the usual battles for neighborhood character, sunlight and diversity began.

The saga turned residents against each other with nasty emails, screaming matches and neighbors who no longer speak to each other. Call it the “real San Francisco homeowners,” and you could be producing a reality television show.

But the real bad guy isn’t the neighbors trying to block more apartments on the site. It’s the city’s outdated zoning regulations that turn small projects into explosive battles in a city with major housing problems.

Rich Hillis, the city’s planning director, also agreed with the assessment that the city’s own rules are to blame, which despite increased demand, a large homeless crisis, and a fleeing middle class severely restrict new housing construction in large parts of the city and dwindling diversity.

“There was a lot to like about that proposal,” said Hillis of the original plan for 4300 17th Street. “But our 1960s code doesn’t allow us to approve it.”

The drama began two years ago when Scott Pluta, a lawyer who worked in the Obama administration and now works for Google, bought the property. He lives on the third floor of the house with his wife Rosalind Pluta, who also works at Google. A tenant lives in a unit subject to rent on the second floor, while the garage, laundry room and workroom are on the ground floor.

Pluta examined his neighborhood and learned that it was 84% ​​white, had an average home value of nearly $ 2 million, and had no affordable housing units. He quickly forged ambitious plans for the property.

He suggested adding an affordable unit on the first floor of his building and adding three units in the garden, two at market prices and one at affordable prices. Both affordable units would be permanently handed over to the Mayor’s Office for Housing, and qualified tenants would be selected through the city’s lottery.

He wanted his property to serve as a kind of laboratory where an experiment could be conducted to find answers to the housing crisis in San Francisco. He knew adding four units was just a tiny piece of the city’s huge housing puzzle – the state has ordered San Francisco to build 80,000 new units by 2031 – but he hoped others could replicate that.

He envisioned six people or families living in small units nearby – maybe a public school teacher, he said, and families of color. It could become a paradise home to people who could have afforded the beautiful neighborhood just a short walk from Muni Castro train station. It could be a model for similar projects in a city that says that it relies primarily on transit, needs affordable housing and wants more diversity.

Scott and Rosalind Pluta’s property, which is currently two units, is located on the corner of 17th Street and Ord Street in the Corona Heights neighborhood.

Yalonda M. James / The Chronicle

“I wanted to do something that was in line with my progressive values,” said Pluta. “The ability to say, ‘I’ve built affordable housing in San Francisco.’ I know it’s cheesy, but it’s meaningful. “

For some of its neighbors, the garden is already a paradise, an open space that gives the surrounding houses more sunlight, air and a view. Pluta’s proposal is hellish in her opinion. Build too big and destroy the character of the block. And some of them say that Pluta pretends to be a social justice fighter when really he’s only there for the money. He said he would not make any money on the project.

At an irritable hearing in November, the planning commission continued the project, saying Pluta’s plan was not possible under the city’s current rules. So he scaled it down. It also lost an affordable unit.

At the request of Corbett Heights Neighbors, the hearing on the new proposal has been postponed for about six weeks and is expected to take place in mid-October. The group said it needed more time to consider the new proposal but was also strongly against it.

Bill Holtzman, president of the neighborhood association, has just returned from the Paris apartment he and his wife own in Paris and said he was still in the process of catching up on the new proposal. But he said it was already clear that according to city rules, the new version was still devouring too much of the garden.

“Our association will always choose trees, grass, and shrubs because that’s what makes San Francisco San Francisco,” he said. “We consider backyards to be inviolable. Until the city or the state changes these rules, we will live by these rules and we will reject any violation of the codes. “

These codes are likely to change – one way or another. Hillis said Pluta would have a far better chance if he waited for Supervisor Rafael Mandelman’s proposal to allow quadruples on corner lots to be passed.

This law should be heard by the Planning Commission next month. A separate proposal from Mandelman to allow fourplexes on every single-family lot is not there yet.

Some other housing promotion policies are well received by the state legislature, and other ways to approve Fourplexes are being pursued by regulators other than housing legislation and election action.

A public hearing notice will be posted at Scott and Rosalind Pluta’s property at 17th and Ord Streets. Two of the units would be affordable housing.

Yalonda M. James / The Chronicle

Mandelman remains largely neutral on Pluta’s proposal, although it gets to the core of what he has been advocating all year round. He said the project could end up on the board of directors, and there isn’t much he can say about it without looking biased ahead of that vote.

“This is the type of housing that I would like to see more of in the district,” he said, adding that his office would like to act as an intermediary between the belligerent neighbors.

Maybe he wants to put on armor first. Pluta and several of his neighbors seemed to clash on both personal and political levels. Pluta thinks they are hypocritical NIMBYs. “It is this cartel that has restricted supply in order to maintain and increase the value of their properties,” he said.

His neighbor Casey Rando said Pluta initially outlined a much smaller proposal than the one he actually made. When Rando saw the plans, he lost his composure.

“I yelled at him and told him he lied to us,” he said. “He hasn’t been communicating with me since then.”

Rando, a gay man who moved to the neighborhood because of his proximity to Castro, said he hates being indicted by Pluta on “all of San Francisco’s racial problems” while Pluta has the money to hire a lobbyist and send one Create website.

“We’re literally three blocks from the rainbow flag and you won’t be lecturing gay men and women on diversity,” Rando said.

Pluta said he will keep trying the planning committee, but he doesn’t know if his shrinking project will ever fail. He never intended to make any money, but now he doesn’t know if he can break even. He could get approval, divide up the property, and hope the buyer would develop the garden.

Laura Foote, executive director of housing association YIMBY Action, said uncertainty is the problem. The outdated rules of the city lead to individual decisions, breaches of neighborhood and far too little living space.

“You could sit on the planning committee all day and those are all stories like this,” she said. “It’s all rich people yelling at each other and it’s the system as it was designed.”

It may be a popcorn worthy look, but it will never help us weather our housing crisis.

Editor’s Note: In an earlier version of this story, the number of units in the existing building was incorrectly stated.

The San Francisco Chronicle columnist Heather Knight appears on Sundays and Wednesdays. Email: hknight@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @hknightsf

The post One housing venture has become an epic San Francisco battle. The true enemy is metropolis crimson tape appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.