How a notorious permit fraudster became one homeowner’s nightmare

The first time Melissa Nieto laid eyes on Kung Yuen Chiu and his work van outside of her home on Crescent Avenue, she had no inkling of how much trouble he would end up causing her.&nbsp;



“He just looked like an older guy with money,” she recalled. “He looked like he should be retired.”



Nieto had hired a contractor in the spring of 2024 to replace a retaining wall and install a door on the back of her house, and this man had enlisted Chiu — who goes by K.Y. Chiu or simply Mr. Chiu — to oversee the planning. The work would be a bit complicated, as the rear of Nieto’s home is on one of <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/07/the-standards-food-editor-eats-her-way-through-her-favorite-hood/">Bernal Heights</a>’ signature slopes, but Chiu was there to make sure the project ran smoothly.&nbsp;



Over time, though, Nieto sensed that something was off. Costs kept adding up, and Chiu demanded an extra $5,000 payment to complete the plans, she said.&nbsp;



“He said he wouldn’t finish the project, and I thought, ‘Oh, great,’” Nieto said. “Thinking back on it, I should have gotten somebody else right then.”



Chiu eventually finished the plans, got city approval and the project was completed in early August. Nieto figured that Chiu’s fee had been money well spent. Far too many San Franciscans have seen permit snafus drag out projects for months, if not years.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



So, Nieto was shocked when city officials in November mailed her a notice of violation, ordering her to submit new plans for the project and begin the permitting process from scratch — all because of her permit expediter.&nbsp;



“Everything was fine; they came and did the final inspection, and then they hit me with him not having a license,” Nieto said. “And now I have to pay for the permit, which is $2,500 more.”



In March, the Department of Building Inspection <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25951732-k-y-chiu-staff-report/">flagged Chiu’s work</a> and quietly added his name to its <a href="https://www.sf.gov/reports--may-2024--expanded-compliance-control-program">Expanded Compliance Control list</a>. The list was created in the wake of corruption scandals that came to light in 2020 and is informally known among city staff as the “bad actors” of San Francisco permit expediters. Chiu was found to have fraudulently used the stamp of Himatlal B. Dagli, an engineer who’d <a href="https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/public/c--28801_dec885.pdf">had his license suspended</a> by the California Department of Consumer Affairs in 2010, according to documents The Standard obtained via a public records request.



Leaving no room for doubt of Chiu’s foul intent, city officials noted it was “implausible” he would not have known he was acting in a fraudulent manner, as the stipulation agreement for Dagli’s 2010 suspension also called out Chiu for working without an engineering license.&nbsp;



Consequently, plans for Nieto’s project and two other homes Chiu worked on in the Sunset — 1671 45th Ave. and 1754 27th Ave. — were deemed “invalid and fraudulent” because there was no valid engineer of record.



“I had to pay several thousand dollars to this asshole who wasn’t an engineer to begin with,” Nieto said. “Then I had to get another engineer to do the work, which I&#8217;m going through now to get the plans approved a second time.”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2500" height="1667" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8642037906_billionariesrow-17.jpg?w=2500" alt="A building facade covered with scaffolding is shown, featuring intricate stonework and a small balcony. Leaves from a tree partially frame the top left." class="wp-image-378229" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8642037906_billionariesrow-17.jpg 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8642037906_billionariesrow-17.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8642037906_billionariesrow-17.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8642037906_billionariesrow-17.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8642037906_billionariesrow-17.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Home renovations can suffer serious delays and inflated expenses if plans don&#8217;t receive the blessing of the Department of Building Inspection.</figcaption></figure>



While city officials erred in initially approving permits for three of Chiu’s projects last fall, the bad actors list appears to be serving its purpose. In April, officials added another permit consultant, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25951735-victor-ngoon-staff-report/">Victor Ngoon</a>, who seemed to be working with Chiu in some capacity. Both were found to be using the same suspended engineer’s stamp to get approval for their permit applications.



“By submitting plans with Mr. Dagli&#8217;s stamp affixed, Mr. Ngoon acted with either willful fraud or a failure to exercise the minimum standards of due diligence expected under the circumstances,” city officials wrote.



The report detailing three notices of violation against Chiu over one week in November 2024 raises the question of whether the incidents were just the tip of the iceberg. Nieto’s contractor, Rafael Chahuayo, told The Standard he has heard of more than half a dozen other properties having issues with Chiu. Another source who declined to be named said Chiu’s violations could stem back as far as a decade.



Patrick Hannan, a spokesperson for the Department of Building Inspection, confirmed via email that officials have alerted the district attorney&#8217;s office about Chiu’s violations. Hannan added that building inspection officials have not done a deeper dive into his work and do not have the legal authority to ban permit expediters, which is why Chiu’s name is merely a red flag in the system.&nbsp;



“The Expanded Compliance Control process empowers DBI to invest staff time and resources in monitoring people who consistently misrepresent their work, violate the building codes and rip off unsuspecting property owners,” Hannan wrote in an email.



Chiu did not respond to requests for comment. Ngoon declined to comment Thursday, and attempts to reach Dagli were unsuccessful.



There are seven people on the Expanded Compliance Control list, starting with the <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/02/21/rodrigo-santos-wife-troubled-contractor-list-san-francisco/">Rodrigo Santos</a>, who was convicted for multiple crimes, including trying to influence a city building inspector. Whenever someone on the list is named on a project seeking city permits, the Department of Building Inspection alerts agencies across the city and state. The list of departments that could be contacted include the California Contractors State License Board; the state Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists; the California Architects Board; and — if officials suspect illegal acts have been committed — the San Francisco district attorney’s office.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1622" height="1081" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/IMG_4149-1.jpg?w=1622" alt="A man walks out of a court building." class="wp-image-195831" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/IMG_4149-1.jpg 1622w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/IMG_4149-1.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/IMG_4149-1.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/IMG_4149-1.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1622px) 100vw, 1622px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Rodrigo Santos was convicted for multiple crimes, including trying to influence a city building inspector, and sentenced to 2.5 years in prison.</figcaption></figure>



Randy Quezada, a spokesperson for the DA, declined to comment on Chiu’s violations being referred to prosecutors. “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on the existence or non-existence of possible criminal investigations,” Quezada wrote in an email.



An official for the state Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists confirmed to The Standard that it is a misdemeanor for anyone to use an expired, suspended, surrendered, or revoked certificate or license.



Little information could be found online about Chiu, but <a href="https://marquistopengineers.com/2022/05/20/kung-yuen-chiu/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">a bio</a> on “The Marquis Who’s Who Top Professionals” website states that he has dedicated his life to helping the community.



“Mr. Chiu attributes his success to his desire to improve human lives,” the bio states. “As part of the 30th generation of the Sung Dynasty from China, he decided to pursue his career because he was inspired by his heritage.”



Nieto said the costs for her project ballooned from around $35,000 to $50,000, partly because of Chiu’s actions. However, she noted that the plans he submitted were found to be acceptable, aside from the stamp. She is still waiting for the city to approve her plans a second time and hopes prosecutors pursue a case against Chiu.



“I hope they take everything he’s got,” Nieto said. “It’s pretty rotten what he did.”

Guns and roaches: Inside the homeless housing Lurie is banking on

SF paid a hotel millions to fix homeless damage. It’s still closed

Prop. C, which would create inspector general, projected to win

Corrupt officials may garner more scrutiny under Proposition C, which would create a new inspector general position to investigate City Hall misdeeds.



Prop. C was leading by a wide margin in early returns, suggesting that San Francisco voters like the idea of a dedicated watchdog. 



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="325583"></div>



City Hall is in dire need of extra hands to dig up all its dirt, <a href="https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/proposition-c">the measure’s</a> proponents say.



In 2020, former Public Works director Mohammed Nuru was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice in a wide-ranging bribery scandal. Nuru later pleaded guilty, but by the time he did, more department heads and city staffers were charged or implicated: former San Francisco Public Utilities manager Harlan Kelly, former Department of Building Inspection director Tom Hui, and a bevy of staffers and city contractors.



In the wake of the scandal, city officials were left wondering: Why did it take an FBI investigation to root out the corruption?



Multiple local agencies are already tasked with investigating corruption: the City Attorney’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Ethics Commission, among others.



Proposition C’s principal officer, Ed Harrington, is a former city controller and former manager of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Harrington said San Francisco’s investigative arms are set up to stamp out corruption after the fact, rather than prevent it.



“The current way we do business is almost always reactive,” Harrington said. “There’s no proactive way for someone to say, ‘Something odd is happening here.’”



Harrington points to an example from his tenure at the PUC. A crew of city electricians on Treasure Island were <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/How-city-workers-pulled-off-alleged-scam-3183147.php">fraudulently billing for personal purchases</a> like BMW tires and lease payments on a truck. They allegedly hired prostitutes and took them back to their worksite. Harrington said he approached the District Attorney’s office to investigate, but they wouldn’t lift a finger.



“They were running a whole scam over there. The DA didn’t do anything for three years,” Harrington said. “We had to do all the paperwork and bring it to them.”



Under Prop. C, an inspector general would be empowered to issue subpoenas and investigate suspected fraud, waste, or abuse. The inspector general would have the power to dig through records of city agencies, permittees, contractors — like the ones who bribed Nuru — and lobbyists.



The inspector general would be housed under the city controller’s office, where they could share some staff as a cost-saving measure. The inspector general may cost the city as much as $775,000 annually, according to the controller.



The measure’s opponents mostly disagreed with two elements of the proposal: Firstly, that it <a href="https://growsf.org/voter-guide/#prop-c">is duplicative of existing government agencies</a>, and secondly, that it may be a vehicle to promote Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin’s mayoral candidacy. He has publicly argued the ballot measure is a demonstration of his commitment to ethics in government.



The measure was authored by Peskin and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors after a unanimous vote.



The chief opponents to the inspector general position are Republicans, including Jay Donde, president of the Briones Society, a moderate-leaning Republican group. Donde said he thinks the way the inspector general would be hired is problematic: The controller would appoint an inspector general; the mayor and Board of Supervisors would have to confirm that appointment.



Donde thinks the inspector general should be an elected position.



“If you look at any other jurisdiction,” Donde said, “the person that has this responsibility is independent.”



Proposition C’s proponents believe that housing the inspector general in the controller’s office helps to shield it from political meddling. The city controller is appointed to 10-year terms, insulating them from the rocky waters of politics. And controller’s office funding is enshrined in the city charter, meaning an irate mayor or Board of Supervisors couldn’t cut money from an inspector general if they disagreed with an investigation.



Harrington said allowing the mayor and Board of Supervisors to confirm the inspector general will instill confidence in the appointee and protect them from political disruptions.



“Is that the right level of independence?” Harrington said. “There’s no perfect way. But this is the best you could get.”

Mark Farrell asked for special favor to rush his home renovation permits, mayor says

When Mark Farrell bought his craftsman-style home in the Jordan Park neighborhood for an estimated $5 million, he had big plans. It was a 3,000-square-foot residence in a ritzy neighborhood, but it wasn’t quite right — he needed to transform it.



Farrell, who made the purchase in 2020, wanted to lower the floor into an existing crawl space to make room for a media room, office, and guest room. He planned a new patio and aimed to expand the deck. He also wanted to relocate a second-floor bathroom and replace a dozen windows, according to Department of Building Inspection permits. Farrell estimated the renovation would cost $455,000.



All that work takes time. But according to one highly placed source, Farrell did not want to wait.



Instead, Farrell, who had stepped down as mayor in July 2018, allegedly called a staffer in Mayor London Breed’s office and asked to speed up approvals for housing permits he planned to file. Depending on the timing of any such request for permit expediting, Farrell may have been afoul of a city ethics law.



The accusation comes from Breed herself, shared exclusively with The Standard.



“There was a phone call because the permits were delayed. He was doing a home remodel for some new place he was moving into,” Breed said in an interview.



Breed — who is running for reelection against Farrell and others — said she refused the request. Even today, two things irk her about that call.



For one, Breed said, it was ethically murky: “You don&#8217;t call the mayor asking for a favor like that when you&#8217;re a former mayor.” Secondly, Farrell hadn’t offered help after his exit from the mayor’s office. “This whole time I&#8217;ve not even heard from him, except when he wanted his permit expedited,” Breed said.



Farrell denied the allegation. 



&#8220;Let me be crystal clear: any insinuation or accusation that I called Mayor Breed’s or City staff to receive preferential treatment is a bold face lie,&#8221; Farrell said in a statement.



After he bought his home in 2020, he called a longtime friend who was working in the mayor&#8217;s office to ask how long his planned permits would take, Farrell said.



&#8220;I explicitly told him during that conversation not to engage in my permitting process and that I did not want any help — just information about timelines,&#8221; Farrell said.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="900" height="600" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/my-project-2-2.jpeg?w=900" alt="The image shows two people speaking at separate events. The woman on the left, wearing a blue dress, stands behind multiple microphones, while the man on the right, in a suit and tie, speaks into a single mic." class="wp-image-291857" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/my-project-2-2.jpeg 900w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/my-project-2-2.jpeg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/my-project-2-2.jpeg?resize=768,512 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 900px) 100vw, 900px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mayor London Breed says she refused Farrell&#8217;s request to rush the approval of permits for his home renovation.</figcaption></figure>



As plenty of homeowners have learned the hard way, San Francisco is notorious for its lengthy approvals process.



It can take nearly a year to process a permit to make full in-house alterations, according to data shared by the Department of Building Inspection. The median approval time for permits like Farrell’s in 2019 was nearly nine months, and the time frame hasn’t budged much since.



That makes for a hair-pulling experience for homeowners looking to make renovations, said Ernie Selander, a San Francisco architect with more than 50 years of experience dealing with the city’s byzantine process. He’s seen homeowners wait months, even years, to get the needed stamps of approval.



“They&#8217;re always very frustrated,” Selander said. “Everybody knows going into it that it&#8217;s going to take forever, but you don&#8217;t know how long.”



The city’s labyrinthine permitting processes opened the door for specialists who know how to game the system — sometimes legally, sometimes less so. Permit expediting <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/08/04/san-francisco-permit-expediters/">is a regulated practice</a>, and those who do it must register with the city. In recent years, the practice has drawn scrutiny after some expediters were accused of taking bribes related to their work, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/02/21/rodrigo-santos-wife-troubled-contractor-list-san-francisco/">leading the city to blacklist them</a>.



Moreover, the city charter bars officials from influencing government decisions at departments in which they served, within a year of ending their employment; for a mayor, that includes the entire city. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2920" height="4380" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240909-farrellsfavor-jk-12.jpg?w=1667" alt="A gray house seen on a San Francisco street from the front." class="wp-image-313085" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240909-farrellsfavor-jk-12.jpg 2920w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240909-farrellsfavor-jk-12.jpg?resize=200,300 200w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240909-farrellsfavor-jk-12.jpg?resize=768,1152 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240909-farrellsfavor-jk-12.jpg?resize=1667,2500 1667w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240909-farrellsfavor-jk-12.jpg?resize=1024,1536 1024w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240909-farrellsfavor-jk-12.jpg?resize=1365,2048 1365w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2920px) 100vw, 2920px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Farrell estimated that renovations to his home on Jordan Avenue would cost $455,000, according to city documents.</figcaption></figure>



Breed’s office was unable to confirm the date of the call and could only say that it took place in 2019. Public records show Farrell first registered to vote from the Jordan Park home in 2020. 



Legal or not, Breed said, the request demonstrates something about Farrell’s character: entitlement.



“To ask for what I felt was a favor made me very uncomfortable. It establishes a pattern of feeling like you are entitled to ignore the rules,” she said.



Farrell has trumpeted the need to clean up City Hall’s ethical lapses. After an investigation by The Standard found that the head of the Human Rights Commission signed off on <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/09/12/san-francisco-dream-keeper-initiative-sheryl-davis-james-spingola-nonprofit/">$1.5 million in contracts</a> to an organization run by her romantic partner, Farrell said Breed and another mayoral candidate, Daniel Lurie, “propped up” a system rife with fraud, waste, and cronyism.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



He said Breed has endured too many scandals during her administration, including the indictment of top officials to being fined by the Ethics Commission for failing to report gifts, to cast accusations his way.



&#8220;Breed’s administration reeks of backroom deals and cover-ups, yet she has the gall to point fingers at others,&#8221; Farrell said.



Paul Melbostad, who served as president of the San Francisco Ethics Commission when it conceived the post-employment provision in 2002, said the law was crafted specifically to bar mayors from making unseemly requests of people they’d appointed to government — in that case, Mayor Willie Brown, whose penchant for exerting soft power throughout City Hall is widely known.



Appointees and employees may find it hard to say no to a former mayor, Melbostad said, and “that might compromise the public&#8217;s interest.”



The year-long limit was a compromise to get the rule approved, Melbostad noted. Even if Farrell’s call was legal, he said, “does it violate the spirit of the law? I would say yes.”



Editor&#8217;s Note: This story has been updated to clarify a description of Farrell&#8217;s alleged phone call to a staffer in the mayor&#8217;s office.

Angry San Francisco homeowners plot to kill city’s rezoning plan

As the sunset cast red hues over West Portal skies, residents of San Francisco’s west side funneled into the Scottish Rite Masonic Center’s banquet hall to condemn the city’s rezoning proposal, which aims to increase height limits in residential neighborhoods across San Francisco.&nbsp;



Renderings of what looked like spaceships parked in San Francisco’s sleepy west side neighborhoods were met with gasps from dozens of attendees, most of whom said they were homeowners, at the Wednesday meeting held by Neighborhoods United San Francisco, a collection of over 50 neighborhood groups mobilizing against upzoning proposals brought forth by the Planning Department.&nbsp;



The matter of rezoning has provoked the wrath of residents across the city, notably in west side neighborhoods with a preponderance of single-family homes, but also in wealthier areas on the north side. Despite making up only 2.7% of the city’s population, for example, the Pacific Heights neighborhood made up 28% of feedback citywide on the first rezoning proposal draft—the highest rate of participation across the city’s neighborhoods.&nbsp;



Leading the meeting was Lori Brooke, an anti-development firebrand who wears many hats in San Francisco civic life. She is the co-founder of RescueSF, a group attempting to lobby for homelessness policy changes, and longtime president of the Cow Hollow Association. 



In a nearly hour-long presentation, Brooke painted the city’s rezoning plans as unnecessary, punitive and ineffective. The rezoning proposal must be approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors by January 2026 to help make way for 82,000 new housing units by 2032.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-jetpack-image-compare"><div class="juxtapose" data-mode="horizontal"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281653" src="https://i2.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined01_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="This image shows an aerial view of a densely packed city neighborhood with houses and buildings, trees, and a bridge in the background stretching over a body of water." width="2220" height="1234" class="image-compare__image-before"/><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281654" src="https://i0.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined02_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="The image shows a 3D rendering of a neighborhood with low-rise buildings in the foreground and several large, grey, rectangular structures in the background labeled with numbers. Trees are visible." width="2274" height="1244" class="image-compare__image-after"/></div><figcaption>Neighborhoods United SF created renderings that show what they fear could happen under the city&#8217;s rezoning proposal. Critics have called the renderings bogus. | Courtesy Neighborhoods United SF</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-jetpack-image-compare"><div class="juxtapose" data-mode="horizontal"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281657" src="https://i2.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined05_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="The image shows a cityscape with densely packed buildings climbing up a hill, topped by a tall tower. Below, more buildings are visible with a body of water in the background." width="2236" height="1304" class="image-compare__image-before"/><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281658" src="https://i2.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined06_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="This image shows a cityscape with three prominent, white-box shaped buildings of varying heights superimposed over an existing urban area under a clear blue sky." width="2340" height="1300" class="image-compare__image-after"/></div><figcaption>Renderings created by Neighborhoods United SF show dramatic height increases near the city&#8217;s waterfront, but critics call them misinformation. | Courtesy Neighborhoods United SF</figcaption></figure>



Hoping to rally supporters to use as a battering ram for a Thursday Planning Commission meeting on the proposal, Brooke described a harrowing future San Francisco devoid of viewscapes and affordable housing.



“Who’s going to want to live in one of these?” she asked the crowd, pointing to a rendering of an eight-story building. “It’s not just personal views, it&#8217;s public vistas, it&#8217;s the things that make San Francisco iconic and special. If you want to live in a city that has tall towers, there are plenty of places in this country to go.”



Neighborhood United’s detractors have criticized Brooke for employing scare tactics, misinformation and red herrings in her quest to block rezoning.&nbsp;



Brooke flipped from slide to slide of renderings showing what mid-rise buildings could look like in residential neighborhoods, bracketing entire neighborhoods and cutting views and hope for sunlight. Anne Yalon, a spokesperson for the Planning Department, called the renderings bogus and an attempt to steer the narrative against housing development.&nbsp;



“These crude boxes they&#8217;ve drawn on the website are completely out of scale,” Yalon said. “It&#8217;s not what an eight-story or 14-story building looks like. They&#8217;re using these fear-mongering tactics to get people on board, but if we don&#8217;t do this, we’re in big trouble,” Yalon added, referring to the city’s rezoning plan.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-jetpack-image-compare"><div class="juxtapose" data-mode="horizontal"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281655" src="https://i1.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined03_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="The image shows a modern, boxy white building next to a traditional white church with red roof tiles, set against trees and a clear blue sky." width="2244" height="1248" class="image-compare__image-before"/><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281656" src="https://i1.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined04_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="The image shows a large, featureless orange building with a vertical striped texture on one corner. Distorted objects in the foreground resemble cars and debris." width="2240" height="1240" class="image-compare__image-after"/></div><figcaption>Renderings created by an anti-development group showed a large-blocky structure at 19th and Sloat. | Courtesy Neighborhoods United SF</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="4032" height="3024" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?w=2500" alt="A woman is presenting at a podium to a large, seated audience in a spacious, brightly lit room with ceiling chandeliers, large windows, and two projection screens." class="wp-image-281908" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg 4032w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=300,225 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=768,576 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=2500,1875 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=1536,1152 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=2048,1536 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 4032px) 100vw, 4032px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">West side residents, including many homeowners, gasped at renderings showing hypothetical large buildings along the city&#8217;s waterfront.</figcaption></figure>



Mike Antonini, a Republican who served as planning commissioner from 2002 until 2016, kicked off the meeting with warnings about waterfront towers that could be erected from the Richmond District down to Lakeshore. He foretold plummeting property values, likening the rezoning plan to Soviet tenements before quoting Ronald Reagan: “The loss of freedom is only a generation away,” he said. Two more former planning commissioners—Dennis Antenore, who served in the 1990s, and Dennis Richards, who resigned in 2020 amid a lawsuit against the Department of Building Inspection—have also thrown their support behind Brooke’s group.&nbsp;



Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who’s running for mayor, echoed fears about the ill-effects of development in San Francisco, criticizing developers eager to stake claim to properties citywide and asserting that land development has historically been under the purview of local government.&nbsp;&nbsp;



“We should not forget the dark days of San Francisco’s experience with redevelopment in the 1950s and 1960s, now widely seen as a colossal planning mistake with deep racist undertones that led to the displacement of thousands of predominantly low-income people of color in San Francisco’s Fillmore District and Japantown,” Peskin said.



If the city fails to meet its state housing mandate by 2032, it could result in a loss of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in state funds that go to transportation, parks and affordable housing and lead to <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/01/27/developers-ready-to-pounce-as-bay-area-cities-fall-behind-on-housing-deadline/">“builder’s remedy” projects</a> that bypass local zoning rules and could bring much taller projects.&nbsp;



To make it possible to accommodate those units, Mayor London Breed instructed the Planning Department to expedite a rezoning plan.



“She saw the numbers and said ‘We gotta get going,’” Yalon said. “What usually happens in two years we did in eight months through an insane amount of outreach, surveys, in-person meetings.”



The Planning Commission’s meeting on Thursday lasted hours and featured a few dozen speakers, several of whom represented neighborhood groups opposed to upzoning along with some standing in support.&nbsp;



“[The Planning Department has] not implemented the mandated increased tenant protections prior to pushing these upzonings forward,” said Jeantelle Laberinto of the R...

How to fix a broken City Hall? Mayoral candidates sound off

All five of the major candidates for mayor can agree: Something is rotten in the state of San Francisco.&nbsp;



But identifying what ails the city and how to go about fixing wasteful spending, corruption and anemic progress on building pretty much anything are among the stances that make each candidate distinct.



On Wednesday, nonprofit founder and <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/04/04/san-francisco-mayor-election-daniel-lurie-wealth/">Levi Strauss heir Daniel Lurie</a> released a plan to increase accountability at City Hall, from how the city drafts and monitors nonprofit contracts to speeding up the process to permit new housing and ensure construction projects are completed on schedule.&nbsp;



The Standard interviewed Lurie about his plan and reached out to other candidates to see how they would address similar issues if elected mayor.&nbsp;



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-daniel-lurie">Daniel Lurie</h2>



Lurie’s eight-page “<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24538432-daniel-lurie-city-hall-acountability-plan">City Hall Accountability Plan</a>” offers a sweeping list of proposals that cover contract management and efforts to speed up permitting, inspection and construction. (It also features pictures of Lurie seemingly telling his plan to people, including one of him walking a construction site with three people while carrying his hard hat riskily in hand.)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1374" height="924" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/screenshot-2024-04-09-at-7-16-51-pm.png" alt="Daniel Lurie and three other people in safety vests and helmets walk at a construction site, with machinery in the background." class="wp-image-266280" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/screenshot-2024-04-09-at-7-16-51-pm.png 1374w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/screenshot-2024-04-09-at-7-16-51-pm.png?resize=300,202 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/screenshot-2024-04-09-at-7-16-51-pm.png?resize=768,516 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1374px) 100vw, 1374px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Daniel Lurie, far right, walks with a hard hat in hand for a photo that was released with his new accountability plan.</figcaption></figure>



The proposal includes the creation of a new unit of experts to streamline contracts across departments and “shrink the overall size of the bureaucracy.” That may seem counterintuitive, but Lurie suggested in a phone interview that departments are siloed off in a way that creates redundancy and potential oversights.



“We have to have these departments stop acting like their own fiefdoms, and we need collaboration,” Lurie said. “And that cuts across all three pillars of this plan.”



Lurie also proposed baking in clearer, outcome-based performance metrics into contracts, developing a contractor score card and hiring a chief financial officer to oversee nonprofits and the departments they work with. Nonprofits that do more than $1 million in business with the city would also be required to have their point people register as lobbyists.











A rash of scandals involving nonprofits has come to light in recent years, adding to the ongoing skepticism over how effectively the city has managed its homelessness and housing crises. <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2022/10/25/supes-roundup-baker-places-scandal-puts-nonprofits-under-the-microscope/">They include a city employee taking an outside six-figure salary</a> with the drug rehab nonprofit Baker Places, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/02/27/nonprofit-accused-of-swindling-city-in-100k-scheme-involving-cigars-and-liquor/">low-income and youth service provider J&amp;J Community Resource Center allegedly swindling</a> the city out of at least $100,000 to pay for booze, cigars and motorcycles, and <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/04/02/san-francisco-homeless-nonprofit-homerise-report/">housing provider HomeRise being accused just last week of misusing millions of dollars</a>.&nbsp;



One of the more buzzy proposals in Lurie’s plan would target the scandal-plagued Department of Building Inspection while creating a “shot clock” for permit reviews. The city agency has been accused of <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/01/08/department-of-building-inspection-investigation-birmingham-family/">multiple</a> instances of corrupt practices, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/01/02/san-francisco-van-zeng-building-inspector-charged-conflict-of-interest/">like an inspector who signed off on his own home</a>. He was later fired.&nbsp;



“Experts say that the shot clock part will reduce the time to get approvals for housing and small business development by four to five months,” Lurie said.&nbsp;



The city has enacted more than 4,500 changes to the municipal code since 2016, according to Lurie’s campaign. As a result, many developers have turned to paying permit expediters to help projects navigate the labyrinth of red tape, which has led to instances of corruption.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="5760" height="3840" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240220propdprewrite-03.jpeg?w=2500" alt="A man holds his hand up in the air" class="wp-image-255267" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240220propdprewrite-03.jpeg 5760w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240220propdprewrite-03.jpeg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240220propdprewrite-03.jpeg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240220propdprewrite-03.jpeg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240220propdprewrite-03.jpeg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240220propdprewrite-03.jpeg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 5760px) 100vw, 5760px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mohammed Nuru, San Francisco&#8217;s former director of Public Works, was sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to fraud.</figcaption></figure>



The most high-profile scandal to hit San Francisco in recent years <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/08/04/players-in-san-francisco-corruption-scandal-mohammed-nuru/">involved Mohammed Nuru</a>, the former Department of Public Works boss who was arrested by the FBI in 2020 after he participated in a sprawling web of corruption going back years.&nbsp;That web included permit expediters <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/06/30/san-francisco-corruption-walter-wong-testifies-harlan-kelly-trial/">Walter Wong</a> and <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/11/28/san-francisco-corruption-bernie-curran-rodrigo-santos-restitution/">Rodrigo Santos.</a>



“The idea that you have to have decades of experience to get through this code, it just creates conditions that are ripe for bribery and how you end up with guys like Rodrigo Santos who get hired to grease the wheels,” Lurie said.



The last part of Lurie’s plan would focus on changing the way construction contracts are monitored and awarded, shifting acceptance to the “best value” bid instead of the lowest acceptable offer.&nbsp;



Lurie said that he would create a small business liaison group and set aside more relief funds to help prevent and mitigate issues like those found in the <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/02/08/san-francisco-taraval-street-nightmare/">nightmare on Taraval Street</a>, a $90 million project that has disrupted businesses along the road and the <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/02/27/san-francisco-most-controversial-bathroom-lgbtq-rights/">infamous $1.7 million toilet</a> in Noe Valley.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-mayor-london-breed">Mayor London Breed</h2>



Mayor London Breed unveiled her Housing for All plan at <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/02/09/sf-mayor-london-breed-state-of-the-city-speech-2023/">last year’s State of the City</a> address, and she released <a href="https://londonbreed.medium.com/housing-for-all-1-year-update-4033dcfc9a1f">a progress report</a> earlier this month on her blog. Steps she has taken to jump-start the production of housing include signing legislation to unlock funding and reduce inclusionary housing requirements and other impact fees.



Jeff Cretan, a spokesperson for the mayor, also noted the passage of Proposition H in 2020, which streamlined the approval process for small businesses to receive permits. The mayor’s <a href="https://www.sf.gov/information/one-city-housing-all-action-plan">One City</a> plan, which falls under the Housing for All plan, also intends to cut the permitting time for housing in half.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="5472" height="3648" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240307-stateofthecity_jy_04.jpg?w=2500" alt="Mayor London Breed in a blue blazer speaks at a podium with a mic, behind her is a window and U.S. flags." class="wp-image-257002" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240307-stateofthecity_jy_04.jpg 5472w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240307-stateofthecity_jy_04.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240307-stateofthecity_jy_04.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240307-stateofthecity_jy_04.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240307-stateofthecity_jy_04.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20240307-...

Wealthy San Francisco developer changes plea to guilty in federal corruption case

A wealthy San Francisco developer and one of his employees, who allegedly took part in a conspiracy to <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/11/09/san-francisco-corruption-sia-tahbazof-charged-bribery-bernie-curran-scandal/">bribe a trio of Department of Building Inspection</a> employees, changed their pleas from not guilty to guilty Friday in federal court as part of a plea agreement in which both men will cooperate with the government and avoid trial.



<a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/12/14/san-francisco-corruption-sia-tahbazof-change-of-plea/">Sia Tahbazof</a>, the 72-year-old <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/11/14/san-francisco-mayoral-hopeful-ahsha-safai-ties-to-sia-tahbazof/">politically connected</a> head of SST Investment and design company SIA Consulting, was charged Nov. 9 with one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud in connection with the alleged bribery scheme.



In court Friday, Tahbazof pleaded guilty to that charge, as did his employee and nephew Bahman Ghassemzadeh, who worked for Tahbazof’s firm and allegedly bribed an inspector.



Both men face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Tahbazof and Ghassemzadeh are set to be sentenced April 19.



Tahbazof’s third associate in the case, Reza Khoshnevisan, was also charged with the same allegations and pleaded not guilty last November.



The case against Tahbazof and his colleagues was part of a series of new cases filed by the U.S. Attorney&#8217;s Office following its prosecution of Bernie Curran, a former city building inspector who took illegal payments from Tahbazof and a structural engineer, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/11/28/san-francisco-corruption-bernie-curran-rodrigo-santos-restitution/">Rodrigo Santos</a>. Tahbazof was not named in the Curran case but was <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/08/14/san-francisco-corruption-scandal-who-is-the-immensely-wealthy-developer/">referred to only by the moniker &#8220;Developer-1</a>.”



After Curran went to prison, the scandal expanded when the U.S. Attorney&#8217;s Office filed charges against two of his former colleagues, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/11/09/ex-dbi-engineers-rudy-pada-cyril-yu-plead-not-guilty/">then-plan checkers Cyril Yu and Rudy Pada</a>. The two allegedly participated in the bribery scheme involving Tahbazof, Ghassemzadeh and Khoshnevisan.



Tahbazof and Ghassemzadeh allegedly conspired to bribe Pada and Yu with cash, meals and drinks in exchange for them issuing building permits, prosecutors said.



Tahbazof and Ghassemzadeh also allegedly paid Curran $1,500 for every inspection he did on their projects. Tahbazof also allegedly forgave a $30,000 debt Curran owed.

San Francisco high-rise window failures preventable, report finds

Broken glass from high-rise windows rained down on Downtown San Francisco during wind storms last March. But rather than buckling under the pressure of powerful gusts, the vast majority of the window failures were likely caused by issues that predated the storm, some of which were known to the buildings’ management, investigators hired by the city have concluded.&nbsp;



The winds, which topped 77 mph during the March storms, exacerbated the existing issues and threw debris from seven Downtown buildings onto the streets, according to an investigator’s report presented at the San Francisco Building Inspection Commission Wednesday.



READ MORE: <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/03/14/glass-falling-from-downtown-san-francisco-high-rise/">Glass Falling From Downtown San Francisco High-Rise</a>



One high-rise had a history of glass breakages caused by building-material contamination, while managers at another tower had known about a window hardware issue for three years but failed to fix it, investigators found.



“The report indicates that the glass failures were largely preventable and were primarily caused by existing broken windows that had not been repaired,” a San Francisco Department of Building Inspection spokesperson said in a written statement. “It is critical that building managers identify, secure and fix broken windows immediately so they don’t endanger the public or cause additional property damage, especially before a large storm.”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="640" height="480" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/555.Cal_.WindowBreak.Window.2-rotated.jpg?w=640" alt="" class="wp-image-139275" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/555.Cal_.WindowBreak.Window.2-rotated.jpg 640w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/555.Cal_.WindowBreak.Window.2-rotated.jpg?resize=300,225 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">A window was broken on the 43rd floor of 555 California St. after high winds battered the Bay Area.</figcaption></figure>



In light of the findings, the department plans to inspect all 15-story-or-more buildings constructed since 1998 to identify window issues, the spokesperson said. Down the road, the department may consider asking for a local law change to update its facade-inspection program, Deputy Director of Permit Services Neville Pereira said during a presentation Wednesday.



Meanwhile, the department has issued citations for each of the seven buildings over the broken windows. The department confirmed that fixes were made at 580 California St. and 1390 Market St., according to its public complaint system. The violation cases for 555 California St., 301 Mission St., 350 Mission St. and 1400 Mission St. are still making their way through the city&#8217;s complaint process, with several set to have hearings related to the broken windows in the coming months.



READ MORE: <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/04/04/sf-imposes-inspections-on-new-high-rises-after-intense-storms/">SF Orders Inspections of New High-Rise Windows After Storms</a>



In August, the department held a hearing regarding 50 California St., then fined the building and ordered the owner to fix the windows.



All of the buildings’ owners or managers declined to comment or did not reply to requests for comment.



Investigators with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc. conducted the investigation presented to the San Francisco Building Inspection Commission Wednesday.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-how-the-glass-broke">How the Glass Broke</h2>



The first reported incident of tumbling glass in San Francisco’s Downtown during the early spring storms came on March 14, when a large windowpane came dislodged from the 43rd floor of 555 California St., formerly known as the Bank of America Center. The window <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/03/16/glass-fell-from-the-sky-in-downtown-san-francisco-officials-say-no-cause-for-alarm/">careened down to the street</a>, prompting the San Francisco Fire Department to order nearby residents to hunker down.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="996" height="1326" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-20-at-3.48.19-PM.png?w=996" alt="" class="wp-image-202860" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-20-at-3.48.19-PM.png 996w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-20-at-3.48.19-PM.png?resize=225,300 225w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-20-at-3.48.19-PM.png?resize=768,1022 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 996px) 100vw, 996px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">This photo, provided by 555 California St. building management to investigators, shows that window glass was broken before the March 2023 storms struck San Francisco.</figcaption></figure>



Photos uncovered during the investigation show that the windows were broken as early as Feb. 21, 2023—weeks before the storms buffeted the building. That means the wind dislodged already-weakened windows on March 16 but didn’t break them, Pereira said.&nbsp;



The broken glass from 555 California St. was hurled into its neighbor, 580 California St., during the storm, according to investigators, who say the impact broke six panes at 580 California St.



READ MORE: <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/03/22/salesforce-millennium-tower-windows-fail-in-high-winds/">Salesforce East, Millennium Tower Windows Fail in High Winds</a>



A similar situation unfolded at 301 Mission St., also known as Millennium Tower. There, a window hardware issue had led to glass breakage in February 2020. But building management didn’t fix the issue, which was related to the stay arms that hold the windows in place, prior to the March 2023 storm, according to the report. When the March windstorm hit, a stay arm failed on the 49th floor, which caused the window to blow out, Pereira said.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1988" height="1352" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-20-at-3.49.13-PM-1.png?w=1988" alt="" class="wp-image-202862" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-20-at-3.49.13-PM-1.png 1988w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-20-at-3.49.13-PM-1.png?resize=300,204 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-20-at-3.49.13-PM-1.png?resize=768,522 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-20-at-3.49.13-PM-1.png?resize=1536,1045 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1988px) 100vw, 1988px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">An arrow points out a damaged stay arm still attached to a window jamb after the glass broke on the 49th floor of 301 Mission St.</figcaption></figure>



Millennium Tower’s neighbor suffered at the expense of the deficiency. Debris from that broken Millennium Tower window likely smashed into at least some of the 17 panes of glass that broke at 350 Mission St., located across the street and known as Salesforce East.



The breakage at 50 California St. also likely occurred before the storm. While investigators were less sure of the cause, they concluded that heat stress brought on by insulation pressing up against the glass likely weakened the glass.



The building at 1400 Mission St. has had a history of glass breakages, Pereira said. Its facade glazing was contaminated with nickel sulfate, which can cause the pane to break. In fact, there had been previous spontaneous window breaks at the building due to the contamination dating back to 2015, the report stated. Investigators concluded that the building’s window that crashed down broke before the March storms.



As the number of falling glass incidents piled up throughout March 2023, local officials <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/03/23/falling-glass-from-downtown-sf-skyscrapers-could-prompt-changes-to-building-codes/">became increasingly alarmed</a>. By the end of the month, Mayor London Breed <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/04/04/sf-imposes-inspections-on-new-high-rises-after-intense-storms/">signed an emergency declaration</a>, spurring the investigation into the broken windows.

Why are permit expediters needed to cut San Francisco’s red tape?

<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-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">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?</h2>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="alignright size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="5107" height="3127" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?w=2500" alt="Image of speech bubble with &quot;Ask The Standard&quot; inside." class="wp-image-247020" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png 5107w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=300,184 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=768,470 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=2500,1531 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=1536,940 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=2048,1254 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 5107px) 100vw, 5107px" /></figure></div>


San Francisco is famous for red tape.



The city’s construction permit system has a <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/04/19/sf-has-longest-construction-delays-in-the-state-but-some-local-officials-are-working-to-fix-that/">reputation</a> 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 <a href="https://sfethics.org/guidance/permit-consultants/who-must-file-as-a-permit-consultant" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Ethics Commission</a>. 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&#8217;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.



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



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="3000" height="2001" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE01_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?w=2500" alt="Walter Wong exits the court house with an unknown person." class="wp-image-188463" style="width:670px;height:446px" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE01_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg 3000w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE01_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE01_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE01_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?resize=2500,1668 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE01_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE01_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 3000px) 100vw, 3000px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Walter Wong leaves federal court in San Francisco on June 30, 2023. </figcaption></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Most Famous Permit Expediter</h2>



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.”&nbsp;



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.&nbsp;



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 <a href="https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/SFEC-Form-3410A-Registration-Report-for-Permit-Con/umwe-sn9p" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">website</a> 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.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2048" height="1365" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE02_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?w=2048" alt="Building materials" class="wp-image-188464" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE02_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE02_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE02_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE02_ATSExplainPermitExpediters06302023.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Piping sits at a construction site at 198 McAllister St. in San Francisco&#8217;s Tenderloin on Sept. 26, 2022.</figcaption></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Problematic Process?</h2>



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,&#8221; Calton said. &#8220;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.”



<div style="width:100%;height:500px;" data-fillout-id="9i1svJd2kSus" data-fillout-embed-type="standard" data-fillout-inherit-parameters data-fillout-dynamic-resize></div><script src="https://server.fillout.com/embed/v1/"></script>

Asian Art Museum

Office of the City Administrator

Adult Probation Department

Airport

Arts Commission

Office of the Assessor-Recorder

Board of Appeals

Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

Office of the City Attorney

Department of Children, Youth and Their Families

Controller's Office

Planning Department

Civil Service Commission

District Attorney's Office

Department of Building Inspection

Department of Early Childhood

Department of Emergency Management

Department of Police Accountability

Department of Public Health

Department of Public Works

Office of Economic and Workforce Development

Environment Department

Ethics Commission

Fine Arts Museums

Fire Department

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

Human Rights Commission

Department of Human Resources

Human Services Agency

Health Service System

Juvenile Probation Department

Public Library

Municipal Transportation Agency

Office of the Mayor

Public Defender's Office

Police Department

Port

Public Utilities Commission

Recreation and Park Department

Department of Elections

Retirement System

Rent Board

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General

Sheriff's Department

Department of Technology

Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector

War Memorial

Department on the Status of Women

General City Responsibilities

General Administration & Finance

Culture & Recreation

Community Health

Human Welfare & Neighborhood Development

Public Works, Transportation & Commerce

Public Protection

SF Civil Grand Jury

The Abatement Appeals Board provides a final review process for City permitting decisions. It ensures fair and efficient adjudication of permit-related disputes before an impartial panel. The board holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals concerning notices of abatement.

Abatement Appeals Board

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 1

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 2

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 3

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 4

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 5

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 6

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 7

The Access Appeals Commission provides final reviews for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The commission holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals related to City permits.

Access Appeals Commission

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 1

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 2

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 3

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 4

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 5

The Adult Day Health Care Planning Council advises on the development and improvement of adult day health care services. It provides expertise in healthcare planning, policy recommendations, and program evaluation. Key responsibilities include assessing community needs and advising on service delivery enhancements.

Adult Day Health Care Planning Council

Adult Probation Department supervises individuals on probation and facilitates their reintegration into the community. It provides reentry and rehabilitative services, including victim restitution and financial assistance for crime victims. The department values public safety, offender rehabilitation, and community partnerships.

Cristel Tullock

The Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners evaluates arts and crafts applicants and monitors program compliance. It conducts studio visits and public screenings to ensure adherence to established criteria. Members also revise program criteria and undertake additional tasks as needed.

Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners

The Advisory Council on Human Rights advises on anti-discrimination laws and racial equity initiatives. It provides expertise on reparations and public policy impacts on Black communities. It guides efforts to establish partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities in San Francisco.

Advisory Council on Human Rights

San Francisco Airport manages air traffic operations and ensures safe aircraft movement. It provides parking facilities and maintains airport infrastructure to accommodate travelers and staff. The department oversees ground transportation and coordinates with airlines for efficient passenger services.

Mike Nakornkhet

The Airport Commission oversees policy and strategic planning for San Francisco International Airport. It makes key decisions on airport development projects and financial management. It ensures compliance with regulations and collaborates on initiatives like terminal naming.

Airport Commission

Airport Commission Commissioner 1

Malcolm Yeung

Jose F. Almanza

Mark Buell

Susan Leal

Airport Director

Animal Care and Control Department manages animal sheltering, adoption, and emergency response services. It enforces animal-related laws and regulations, ensuring the humane treatment and safety of animals. The department also provides public education on responsible pet ownership and animal welfare.

Animal Care and Control Department

Virginia Donohue

Animal Care and Control Department, Director

The San Francisco Arts Commission oversees the integration of arts into city life and ensures public access to cultural experiences. It makes decisions on public art programs and allocates grants to support local artists and performances. The commission actively shapes policies affecting the arts ecosystem in San Francisco.

Arts Commission Commissioner 1

Arts Commission Commissioner 2

Arts Commission Commissioner 3

Arts Commission Commissioner 4

Debra Walker

Suzanne Ferras

Jessica Rothschild

Seth Brenzel

JD Beltran

Marcus Shelby

J Riccardo Benavides

Nabiel Musleh

Charles (Chuck) Collins

Lydia So

Arts Commission Commissioner 15

San Francisco Arts Commission invests in a vibrant arts community and shapes cultural policy. It enlivens the urban environment through public art programs and supports diverse artistic expressions. The commission facilitates meetings and discussions to engage the community in cultural development.

Ralph Remington

Arts Commission, Director of Cultural Affairs

The Asian Art Commission determines policy and administers the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. It oversees museum operations and collaborates with the Asian Art Museum Foundation on fundraising efforts. Commissioners ensure the museum's strategic direction and financial sustainability.

Asian Art Commission

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 1

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 2

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 3

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 4

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 5

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 6

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 7

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 8

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 9

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 10

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 11

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 12

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 13

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 14

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 15

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 16

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 17

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 18

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 19

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 20

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 21

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 22

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 23

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 24

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 25

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 26

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 27

Asian Art Museum showcases Asian art and culture through exhibitions and educational programs. It offers diverse collections and hosts special events to engage the community. The museum fosters cultural appreciation and understanding by providing access to its extensive art collections.

Dr. Soyoung Lee

Asian Art Museum, Director

The Assessment Appeals Board #1 hears property tax assessment appeals in San Francisco. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine property values. The Board has the authority to make final decisions on assessments regardless of property type or value.

Assessment Appeals Board #1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 2

Richard Lee

Stephen Wasserman

Adena Gilbert

Paul Bellar

Quirina Mitchell

Hilary Winslow

The Assessment Appeals Board #2 adjudicates property tax assessment appeals for San Francisco taxpayers. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine accurate property values. The Board exercises authority to render final decisions on residential properties and specific real estate assessments.

Assessment Appeals Board #2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 3

Claire Ervin Lee

Louisa Mendoza

Joyce Lewis

Nicholas Goldman

Michelle Domingo

The Assessment Appeals Board #3 provides a platform for San Francisco taxpayers to contest property tax assessments. It conducts hearings where evidence from both taxpayers and the Assessor is evaluated. The Board makes binding decisions on property assessments based on presented evidence.

Assessment Appeals Board #3

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 3

Marc Dickow

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 5

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 6

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 7

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 8

Assesses property, applies exemptions, collects transfer taxes, and records official documents.

Assessor-Recorder

Joaquín Torres

The Ballot Simplification Committee ensures voter materials are clear and understandable. It reviews and revises ballot language to accurately reflect propositions and measures. The committee advises on simplifying complex legal and technical terms for voter comprehension.

Ballot Simplification Committee

The Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee provides policy advice on planning and land use matters in Zone 2 of Bayview Hunter's Point. It offers expertise in land use policies, zoning issues, and urban development. The committee advises the Board of Supervisors, City Boards, and commissions on relevant projects and initiatives.

Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee

The Behavioral Health Commission advises on mental health policy implementation and quality service delivery. It reviews and advocates for effective mental health services, ensuring policies meet community needs. It educates stakeholders to integrate mental health considerations into broader health strategies.

Behavioral Health Commission