New S.F. data is most detailed yet on how long it takes to move through city's notorious permit process
The time it takes to get approval to build something in San Francisco has fallen since a number of streamlining measures were implemented last year — but some departments still struggle to meet the city's new target times.
That's according to new data compiled by the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection, which is published in a new dashboard tracking the processes as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie's PermitSF initiative. The effort aims to simplify the city's notoriously long and often convoluted permitting process.
The dashboard includes two main components: one tracks the median number of days it takes to get through the entire planning or building process, and the other breaks down how long the planning and building departments each take to complete their steps in the process.
Together, the dashboard and underlying data provide more transparency into San Francisco's permitting process than previously existed.
Using the data, a Chronicle analysis found that the time it takes to approve a project or issue a permit has sped up in recent years. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that the city made 'significant changes' to the planning and building review processes starting in January 2024, in response to state law as well as local changes under former Mayor London Breed.
The time spent in both planning and building dropped after those changes were implemented, the data show. Planning approval plummeted from a median of 222 to 133 days, and building went from a median of 258 to 209. So far this year, the median times are on track to be even faster.
Within the process, each step now has its own target for how long it's supposed to take — a metric dubbed the 'shot clock' in a press release from Lurie's administration. Such goals 'make the process more predictable for homeowners and businesses' and hold departments accountable for any delays, the release said. The target times went into effect this month.
So far, according to the dashboard, the city seems to be faring well: Over the last year, though the targets had not yet been set, the building department completed tasks within the target window most of the time, and the planning department only missed its target for resubmission reviews.
Still, that doesn't mean that all projects and permits are suddenly sailing through: In both the planning and the building departments, nearly 30% of permits took longer than the target 30 days to get through a first review. Missed target times will be incorporated into staff performance plans, according to Lurie's office.
The metrics don't measure any time spent on required pre-application neighborhood outreach, which can add significant delays to projects. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that in July 2023, the city removed the pre-application requirement for most projects, although some bigger projects, like new construction or additions over a certain size still need it.
Additionally, the total time metric for planning approval does not include checking whether the application is complete, a process that can take multiple rounds of submittals to the city. That metric is measured, however, in the planning department's 'shot clock' dashboard, with a target time of 21 days.
The new data also reveal how long permits spend at each 'review station,' or city departments that need to check various permits for safety and code compliance.
While the complexity of what each department must review varies with each project, some hit the city's new targets more often than others. A number of stations fell behind in the first review stage, which is when a plan is first checked for compliance (the city sets a 30-day target for these), but most hit the target for rechecks, or reviews of plans that have been revised, over the last year (a 14-day target).
Of departments that completed at least 200 reviews from May 2024 and through April 2025, only one missed the target on most projects for both first reviews and rechecks: the Bureau of Urban Forestry, which handles permits on street trees and foliage. (Because the targets are new, the Bureau of Urban Forestry was not technically held to these targets over the 12 months ending in April, but has been starting this month.)
In an email, Chris Heredia, a spokesperson for the Bureau, said that slower response times are due to a 'staffing issue,' as inspectors, who are also tasked both with upkeep of existing city trees, can only allocate about 20% of their time to permits.
'San Franciscans want trees with new construction,' he wrote, noting that construction, and the load on inspectors, had seen an uptick. 'We don't have an adequate number of urban forestry inspectors to meet the demand.' Still, he said that review times had improved in recent months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Daniel Lurie didn't get everything he wanted in his first S.F. budget. Neither did his critics
Mayor Daniel Lurie 's first San Francisco budget negotiations were not as dramatic as they could have been, despite vigorous opposition from labor unions and nonprofits over his plan to close the city's huge deficit. When Lurie introduced his proposal to eliminate a roughly $800 million two-year shortfall, he sought to cut 1,300 vacant jobs and about 100 filled positions. But city lawmakers on Thursday reached a deal with Lurie to prevent 56 layoffs, blunting the impact on San Francisco's vast municipal workforce that is already one of the largest in the country. The mayor allocated funding for about 33,000 city employees next fiscal year. Unions sounded the alarm about the budget even before it was proposed by Lurie, unsuccessfully urging him to avoid deep cuts by calling on tech companies to drop lawsuits seeking tax refunds. As the Board of Supervisors vetted the budget plan, labor groups escalated their resistance, disrupting a meeting until police removed protesting workers in handcuffs. Nonprofits also vehemently objected to Lurie's proposal to cut about $185 million in grant and contract spending. Ultimately, the deal that the supervisors' budget committee brokered with Lurie scaled back some of his most aggressive plans. By tweaking the mayor's two-year spending proposal, supervisors freed up $15 million to reduce layoffs, and they reallocated $26 million to invest in a variety of services that Lurie originally intended to cut. The money is a drop in the bucket of San Francisco's $7 billion general fund, but it will help avoid some of the most painful belt-tightening originally envisioned by Lurie. The budget deal, which must still be approved by the full board of supervisors next month, illustrates how Lurie is trying to balance the demands of lawmakers and organized labor while making good on promises to reduce San Francisco's persistent deficits. He didn't give the unions or supervisors everything they wanted. But he also didn't seek a massive overhaul of the city bureaucracy or press for layoffs on the scale the city saw during the Great Recession. Lurie said in a statement that the budget deal would help the city avoid spending 'money we don't have, while focusing our resources on providing safe and clean streets, addressing the fentanyl crisis, and advancing our economic recovery.' 'Passing this budget also required painful decisions that were, unfortunately, necessary to set up our entire city for success,' Lurie said. 'Leadership means making those tough decisions, and this group of city leaders did that.' Supervisor Connie Chan, who chairs the board's budget committee, said Lurie was put in a difficult position partly because recent city budgets under his predecessor, London Breed, were balanced with a heavy reliance on temporary funding sources. Lurie used far less one-time money in his first budget proposal than Breed did last year, according to the city controller's office. The mayor and supervisors also set aside $400 million to help shield the city from federal funding cuts under the Trump administration. 'We are looking to the future about how we protect San Francisco and make sure that San Francisco is solvent,' Chan said. 'That really is the common goal that got us through this budget process… I recognize that and I think the mayor recognizes that.' Chan said she and her colleagues have tried to do 'whatever we can to reverse the layoffs for our front-line workers and to protect as many direct services to the most vulnerable as possible.' 'Under the circumstances, I think that we have delivered that,' she said. SEIU 1021, the city's largest public-sector union, had a mixed reaction to the budget deal. Union president Theresa Rutherford said in a statement that her group was relieved that the agreement between supervisors and the mayor 'reverses layoffs of frontline workers.' But she was 'disappointed and concerned' about cuts to nonprofits and city services that remain in the spending plan. The budget would still cut about $171 million from grants and contracts, a $14 million reduction from what the mayor first proposed. 'We've been fighting hard, but our work is not done,' Rutherford said. 'We will continue to fight to protect public services, especially for those in our community who need them the most, and the rights of all the workers who provide those services, public and nonprofit alike. And we will hold the mayor accountable for reversing these layoffs.' One of the biggest sticking points in this year's budget negotiations involved changes that Lurie proposed in how the city spends revenue from a 2018 business tax that funds homeless services. The tax measure, Proposition C, earmarked specific percentages of the proceeds for permanent housing, mental health services, homelessness prevention and shelter and hygiene services. Lurie wanted to redirect about $90 million in unspent revenue from the tax to fund his priorities, namely homeless shelters, which he thinks are in dire need of expansion to get more unhoused people off the streets. The mayor also sought more flexibility in how his administration spends future revenue from the tax. After an extended debate and negotiations with the mayor's office, the budget committee reduced Lurie's $90 million reallocation request down to about $30 million. The committee also agreed to let Lurie more freely spend up to $19 million in extra revenue from the tax if approved by a simple majority of the board. That prompted some intense pushback from Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who questioned why supervisors were 'going to do away with a key provision' of Prop C, which originally required a supermajority board vote to alter the funding categories. 'Should we even have a Board of Supervisors at this point?' Fielder asked at a budget committee hearing. The Coalition on Homelessness advocacy group also lamented the decision, calling it a 'mayoral power grab' in a news release. 'San Francisco is not a kingdom, and it is not a corporation, it is a democracy,' Jennifer Friedenbach, the coalition's executive director, said in a statement. 'Prop C … was carefully constructed to ensure that data-driven, voter-approved mandates existed to build a responsive and efficient homeless system that was protected from wrongheaded political winds.' Chan, the budget chair, defended the committee's decision as a fair compromise. 'We negotiated with the mayor the best outcome (possible) in a very balanced spending plan that supports homeless families and homeless transitional-age youth,' Chan said in an interview. 'I also understand that at this moment and this time, there is also an urgent need to solve the crisis that we see on our streets.' Aldo Toledo contributed reporting.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
After the S.F. exodus, these are the groups of people who are coming back
Between 2020 and 2022, thousands of people left San Francisco as part of a pandemic- and remote work-fueled exodus from the city. And while recent state data suggests the recovery is stalled out, a new dataset from the Census says otherwise. It also shows what kind of people have been most likely to return. The Chronicle analyzed detailed data from the U.S. Census Bureau released today that estimates populations each year by age, sex, race and ethnicity. To determine the demographic groups most likely to have come back from their pandemic exodus, the Chronicle examined percent changes in population groups between 2020 and 2022 — the year the city's population hit a low — and again between 2022 and 2024. Overall, San Francisco's estimated 2024 population of just under 828,000 is still about 6% lower than April 2020's 878,000. But it's 1.6% higher than its 2022 low of just over 814,000. Not all growth came from back-migration. The group that grew the most between 2022 and 2024 was Asian females between 70 and 79 — a group whose population also grew between 2020 and 2022, part of a trend in aging populations in both San Francisco and nationwide. But the next few fastest growing demographic groups suggest some 'bouncing back'. Top among those were Hispanic females between 25 and 29. The cohort's population declined by 14% in the two years that the pandemic shut down much of city life — part of a trend among all racial and ethnic groups in the late twenties age bracket. But since July of 2022, the number of Hispanic females between 25 and 29 increased by almost 10%. While that leaves the total number still about 5% below what it was in 2020, it's one of the largest gains in the last two years among groups that lost people during the pandemic. Broadly, all kinds of people aged 20 to 24 also returned in large numbers in the last two years as well, likely due to a bounce back in the number of college students on campuses in the city. And some types of people returned in such numbers that they actually gained population between 2020 and 2024: Asian females between 35 and 39 and Asian males between 40 and 44 each lost population between 2020 and 2022 — both around just 4% — but gained even more in the two years after. That increase meant both groups saw 2% increases between 2020 and 2024. Still, at least one group that left largely stayed away: younger white people. Around a quarter of white residents in their late 20s and early 30s, and to a lesser degree Asian residents in the same cohort, left and haven't returned to the city. From 2020 to 2024, the non-Hispanic white population declined nationwide too — but only by about 1%.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
This 117-year-old San Francisco neighborhood pharmacy is closing
It seemed like a belated reunion was unfolding Wednesday at 4494 Mission St. Outside, the old men and women visiting were greeted by the familiar red neon words in cursive as they entered the dimly-lit drug store many of them had frequented for decades. It wasn't long before laughter rang through the building while the sounds of clinking bottles and package rustling aired in the backdrop. In less than a month, against many of the community's wishes, the Central Drug Store will permanently shutter. Located in the Excelsior district, the pharmacy announced this month it will permanently close on July 15 — 117 years after it opened in 1908. At 71, owner Jerry Tonelli said he will retire after working at the pharmacy since high school, after his father took over the store in 1965. 'We've had pretty much the same customers over the years, and then their children, and then their children's children,' said Tonelli, dressed in his daily navy blue work uniform. 'It's just a whole cycle of life that we've seen come through here, and it's funny, because after a while it becomes part of your social life.' The closure of Central Drug joins a growing list of pharmacies shuttered in past years in what's increasingly turned out to be a pharmacy shortage across San Francisco. Fifty-one pharmacies in San Francisco have closed since 2015, Supervisor Jackie Fielder's office told the Chronicle in February. Another dozen were projected to close this year. Central Drug is the oldest operating business in Excelsior district today, according to San Francisco Legacy Businesses. Mario Gentile, 67, who grew up with Tonelli, remembers often coming to the pharmacy to peruse the comic book selection during his childhood. Jerry Garcia, one of the founders of famed American rock band Grateful Dead, also sometimes showed up, Gentile recounted. But on Wednesday, Gentile came to drop off his prescription request, perhaps his last at the location. 'It's my only place, I refuse to use anybody else,' said Gentile, whose family ran a shoe repair store on the same block as the pharmacy. 'I am going to miss coming in and meeting the community, the people I grew up with.' After undergoing many transformations through the years, the store is now lined with shelves of everything from candy, colognes, lotions, shampoos, to medical equipment and birthday cards. Behind the counter of the register is also a walk down memory lane. Tonelli, who has worked at the store for more than 50 years, beamed with pride pointing to a painting of the storefront a former employee made for him. He also showed a large board pinned with photos that customers had gifted him. 'Sometimes you feel like you're either a priest or psychiatrist, because you listen to their problems, or they talk to you about their kids,' Tonelli chuckled. Camacho Southerland, 86, has been coming to Tonelli's since a little after she moved to the neighborhood with her family in 1968. She first met Tonelli's father, who was still running the store at the time, and soon became a regular for medicine. Southerland, who was there Wednesday to pick up some prescriptions and a heating pad, said her son also often comes to Central Drug Store. 'It's so sad, Jerry is wonderful,' said Southerland. 'We're going to miss him and the convenience of coming here.' After his retirement, Tonelli said he plans to travel the country, spend time with his grandchildren and take on golf. The building will most likely be sold, and most of his customers will likely transfer their prescriptions to Daniel's Pharmacy on Geneva Avenue, Tonelli said. One customer, Steve Ginesi, 74, said he grew up in the area from elementary through high school and would occasionally come to the shop with his grandmother. When he heard the news of the store's closure, Ginesi said he knew he needed to come back one more time. Now a Sonoma County resident, he hadn't been inside Central Drug for 30 years. He stocked up a few books and stickypads during his visit Wednesday. 'It kind of looks the same,' said Ginesi, gesturing at the room. 'The first thing I did was to look over the corner, and I would usually spend a lot of time at the corner of the store.' In his years as a pharmacist, Tonelli said he has come to learn more than a few things about what the job takes. 'I think you need a lot of patience, compassion and the ability to talk to people and explain things,' Tonelli said. 'I think a lot of times, people come in, they're looking for help, they have a question or they need their medication. You have to be patient and a good listener.' Tonelli said more than anything, he's proud of serving the community he grew up in.
