
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - San Francisco is set to increase permit fees for commercial building and for homeowners who remodel or rebuild their residences — a plan that city officials say will improve customer service at the Department of Building Inspection and close the agency’s projected $14.8 million deficit for next fiscal year.
The increased fees, approved Monday by the Building Inspection Commission, are expected to take effect by October if the proposal is approved by the Board of Supervisors, according to department director Isam Hasenin.
The fees were last overhauled in 1992, Hasenin said.
Under the new fee proposal, the price for a basic electrical-permit fee for a bathroom or kitchen remodel would nearly double to $160. The maximum fee for a permit for up to $50,000 worth of home improvements would increase 29 percent to $1,600.
The proposed fees are based on an hourly charge of $170 for work by an inspector — more than double the current rate of $80, which was set in 2002.
The commission also voted to adopt a 188-point action plan to improve service and speed up turnaround times for permit applications, including new online services. The plan helped secure support for the fee increase from industry representatives who attended Monday’s meeting.
“Our members have to spend an hour on the phone scheduling two or three inspections, which is something that should be done very quickly,” Residential Builders Association of San Francisco President Sean Keighran told The Examiner. “Plans are continuously getting lost in that place.”
The San Francisco Apartment Association, which represents roughly 3,000 landlords, property owners and housing providers, told commissioners in a letter that “San Francisco’s fees are significantly lower than San Jose and Oakland,” and “fair and reasonable adjustments are required” to help the department meet its own costs.
Commissioner Vahid Sattary cast the only vote opposing the proposal. He said the fee increase was excessive because it was based on a projected budget that was greater than this fiscal year’s actual deficit.
Department staff forecast a budget deficit of $14.8 million next year if fees aren’t raised.

Not ranked |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY |
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
1:14 PM MST on Thu., May. 29, 2008 re: "Parking officers prepare to deal with rising tide of anger"
Report as inappropriate
8:12 AM MST on Thu., May. 29, 2008
re: "Parking officers prepare to deal with rising tide of anger"
Report as inappropriate
9:32 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008
re: "Asketh The City: ‘Where art thou, Shakespeare plaques?'"
Report as inappropriate
7:21 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 30, 2008
re: "Cost of home-improvement permits to soar"
Report as inappropriate
10:43 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 29, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
1:39 PM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
1:08 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 4, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
3:04 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
People should leave the parking officers alone and assault city hall. The mayor and the planning department keep approving more and more development without adequate parking in a city with very limited parking as it is. People aren't likely to get out of their cars and use transit for their needs until the transit performs at an acceptable level. I don't believe anyone can honestly claim SFMTA operations in SF are acceptable.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
bee said:
There is no excuse for assaulting a parking officer. There is also no excuse for the rudeness of some parking officers, nor their double parking and blocking traffic with impugnity. Just the other day I saw three parking "officers" taking a break together in a North Beach bakery... Also, why are they called "officers" now that they are no longer under the Police department?
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
this article was a exsotic amazement someone so selfish would take away the only wonderful time being art of william shakespeare he is a amazing designer and who ever shou take the art of an amazing person has a holed heart
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Dadee said:
They should reduce the number of employees. Most of them are incompetent and make it more difficult and expensive to get the project done.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
That sucking sound we here is the Mayor playing to his friends and collegues at LENNAR CORP with the solar offer. The same people who are going to rebuild the Bayview for no cost to taxpayers. Really?
0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Eric Brooks - SF Green Party said:
One very important fact that your report fails to note, is that the Mayor's solar plan lets the SFPUC wave caps and allow an unlimited public subsidy to private corporations for building solar on their property. So under the Mayor's plan, if Lennar Corporation builds us a new stadium, it could also deck out that stadium with millions of dollars of solar panels and stick San Franciscans for the bill! Let's make sure that public money goes to public solar, not private corporations. We should scrap the Mayor's plan.
2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The city should not pay for these small, inefficient, expensive residential installations. They are poorly monitored and maintained, the actual output is unknown, it's like buying a pig in a poke. If the SFPUC can convince a private company to operate a large installation at Pier 96 and sell the electricity back to the city at a guaranteed reasonable rate, that would be a better deal. However, it's questionable whether or not the SFPUC can make such a deal.
2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Let me see, the supes find time to debate and pass a pointless bill on China, but didn't have time to look at and pass a useful bill actually pertaining to San Francisco.
1 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree