All stories about "Permits"

Ah yes, the San Francisco Building Department. That special circle of hell reserved for everyone who just wants to do a simple kitchen or garage renovation. To add insult to injury, the Board of Supervisors recently approved an increase in fees on hundreds of permits and Planning Department services— the first since 1992. How steep are we talking? Almost a 38% ($50) increase on small remodel permits and a jump from $80 per hour to $170 per hour for building inspections. (The city cites a rise in the cost of living and increased labor costs as reasons for the hike.) Let's end with a little irony, and rewind back to last year, when then-new Department of Building Inspection director Isam Hasenin claimed that the city had retooled its "process" in order to create a "streamlined, efficient review and approvals’ process that delivers high quality, predictable and responsive customer services." Holding ...
· S.F. building, remodeling fees to increase [SF Gate]
· Bay Area Builders Can't Haz Permits [Curbed SF]
· Home Improvement: City Permit Costs to Skyrocket [Curbed SF]
· San Francisco Planning Department: The 10th Circle of Hell [Curbed SF]

Attention, ladies! Osento, the famed Mission pickup spot women's spa at 955 Valencia Street is shuttering. And soon, too— a Curbed reader spotted some permit gibberish affixed to the front gate, as seen here. Subjected to a thorough quiz-down (Curbed operative in the making!) an employee gave the dish: Osento will close its doors as soon as the Planning Department grants the new tenants permission to convert the beloved spa into two condominiums. As far as we've heard, it's a small job— no commercial developer-types have been spotted on-site. Another hit for Mission biz. [Curbed Inbox]

Housing crisis. Mortgage crunch. Recession. Summer reruns— tough times here in the United States, and banks are understandably nervous to lend money for new mortgages. As fate would have it, however, a housing shortage threatens to pummel the Bay Area. Not such a great time to slow down new construction, eh? Yet issued building permits in the nine Bay Area counties are down 24% from the annual average— and over half of those were given "above-moderate-income" households. Those most affected, of course, are the lower-income hoi polloi; a lack of affordable housing might contribute to a new population of "working homeless." There is, however, a last bastion of construction, where 548 permits became a staggering 3,950 in the past year. Dublin. Dublin, California.
· Bay Area cities issue fewer housing permits [SF Gate]

The road to hell—and the San Francisco Planning Department—is paved with good intentions. Think you actually have the right to renovate the house you worked your entire life to buy? Ha, we say. Ha! The City Planning Department office knows better than you ever will, and they have been entrusted with the task of defending the historic fabric of the city— Just don't ask them to define "historic." Although the far-from-comprehensive Review Procedures for Historic Resources (a.k.a. the "planner's bible") determines the significance of many San Francisco properties, it details a very vague set of guidelines defining acceptable renovations. Make friends with the plan check engineer, people, as she or he will likely make the final call on your renovation plans. As one might imagine, San Franciscan home owners have been, shall we say, less than thrilled with this wavy gravy process; The Planning department is responding by updating their historic resources to create a set of specific building guidelines that will dictate what is and isn't permitted in San Francisco. Naturally, there is no set deadline for this overhaul, so there's no reason to hold your breath— or your permit applications.
· S.F.'s difficult path to home renovation [SF Gate]

Audible sigh of relief for pot lovers city-wide: Those who operate medical marijuana dispensaries in San Francisco now have until January 21, 2009— the date of the next presidential inauguration— to comply with city permit requirements. Prior to yesterday's Board of Supes meeting, only one dispensary had managed to score the proper operating permits even though other owners had brought their buildings up to code in hopes of doing so, too. The city blamed its own bureaucratic sloth for the delay, thus keeping clubs in danger of The Great Shutter, and their operators in legal Limbo. Gavin has been tussling with the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency since 2007, when DEA agents began threatening property owners who rented to Cannabis clubs. Everyone— to your pipes!
· Bored of Supervisors - 5/13/08 [Sweet Melissa]
· Gavin Throws Down With DEA Over Dispensary Threats [Curbed SF]
· Pot Property Owners Snag Permit Stay [Curbed SF]

Hear the Planning Department rooooaaaar. A local resident was slapped with a $50,000 fine for refusing to remove a 48 foot-wide billboard from the side of his residence, one that has been painted and papered over since the 1950's. Back in 2002, ye olde Planning Commission instated in a voter-approved ballot measure that banned new outdoor advertising; in 2006, the Supes declared that all signs installed before '02 were illegal unless they had a (insert drum roll here) permit. The advert in question sits on Folsom Street, and is visible from Highway 101. (As if that billboard is the most visually offensive object along the 101!) The exorbitant fine— $50K, people!— seems to suggest that the harborer of said billboard is being held up as an example to the greater populace; the defendant's lawyer expects to repeal the ruling. “People were expecting Clear Channel and CBS to take the hammer — not a regular guy,” he said. Heads up to the Mission: 96 other billboards slated for removal, and the slap happiness on the fine front is likely to continue, judging by this case.
· Fine of $50,000 for illegal billboard a sign of stepped-up enforcement [SF Examiner]

[Image courtesy the Examiner]

Behold San Franciscans, as Our Great Leader, Gavin Newsom, goes fisticuffs with the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency: In 2007, the DEA cracked down on property owners who rent to medical marijuana dispensaries by sending out a series of letters threatening to seize their assets. Said property owners tossed that shit like a parking ticket appealed to the city; enter a resolution presented by Supe Christopher Daly back in February that renewed San Francisco's vows with the medical marijuana community by granting dispensaries the right to operate without city permits until January, 2009. Now fast forward to April 8th, where Newsom fired off a missive to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee requesting "immediate oversight" of the Fed's “on-going interference with implementation of the law.” Gavin + Mary Jane = true love forever.
· Mayor backs pot clubs in dispute with feds [SF Examiner]
· Pot Property Owners Snag Permit Stay [Curbed SF]

[Image courtesy LA Times]

Whatever happened to Apple's second Mothership? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Two years ago this month, Steve Jobs delivered a blow to the Cupertino City Council: Apple needed an additional site for its growing workforce of hypertension-riddled Mountain Dew guzzlers, and had been considering a bailing on the town altogether. Nine spendy parcels of land later, Apple elected to stand down and hold out. “It’ll take us, you know, three or four years to design it, get all the approvals and get it built,” said Big Daddy Jobs back then, a bit ambitiously it turns out. Two years later, Apple has yet to apply for any permits whatsoever. Delays, yes— we're hedging our bets on 2012 at the earliest. As for the building, please, please, please, we beg of you Steve, don't look to your own products for design inspiration— that kind of shit only flies in Dubai.
· Apple’s new campus still a long way off [Fortune]

[iPad rendering— yes, this monstrosity is, in fact, being built in Dubai—courtesy James Law Cybertecture International]