San Francisco’s permitting system plays a pivotal role in housing availability, business openings, and public infrastructure projects. However, the system is beset by structural issues that result in lengthy delays and increased costs. City staff and policymakers often feel disempowered by rules they cannot change, while residents distrust their leaders and sense governmental obstruction. Many of these issues are rooted in the city charter. SPUR’s latest report, Permitting Progress: How charter reform can speed delivery of housing, transit, new businesses, and more, offers recommendations for charter amendments to empower policymakers and streamline approvals — changes aimed at creating a permitting system that fosters growth and resilience. SPUR asked author Annie Fryman to explain how charter reform can modernize San Francisco’s permitting process to meet the evolving needs of residents and businesses.
How does San Francisco's local government shape the city's development, and what role does the permitting system play in this process?
Local government serves as the primary gatekeeper for development, dictating what, where, and how changes to buildings and infrastructure occur. The General Plan and planning codes govern most of our built environment, balancing residential, commercial, and public uses. These foundational documents directly influence how the city’s physical form, social function, and overall economy change over time.
For new buildings, city codes outline rules for heights, density, and setbacks, ensuring that neighborhoods evolve in ways that enhance residents’ health and well-being. Additionally, various local codes regulate changes affecting public transportation agencies and small businesses, covering aspects such as sidewalk impacts, public health standards, disaster safety, and accessibility for individuals with disabilities.
The permitting system enforces these codes. When a property owner or public entity seeks to construct or renovate a building, or change what a property is used for, they must obtain a series of permits, each with its own set of requirements. Each applicant must demonstrate compliance with applicable codes and obtain approval from multiple departments before proceeding to ensure the proposed change aligns with the city’s standards and goals. This comprehensive process ultimately shapes the character and functionality of San Francisco.
How is San Francisco’s permitting system slowing down and even halting land use development?
One of the primary deterrents is the system’s complexity. Developers must navigate lengthy processes and can even receive conflicting information from different city agencies, resulting in costly delays and redesigns. This lack of clarity can discourage developers and small businesses from undertaking projects due to the risk premium, especially when market conditions are uncertain.
Developers must also contend with the city’s broad appeals process, which allows city residents to appeal nearly all types of permits, introducing significant uncertainty about project viability. The threat of an appeal can lead to delays, deterring developers from moving forward with initiatives that have broad community benefits.
Another major hurdle for developers is that many land use policies were enacted through voter initiatives and are now outdated but can’t be amended without going back to the ballot. Consequently, developers are often constrained by regulations that don’t align with current values or needs. The inability to adjust or wind down these policies legislatively undermines the current Planning Code and legislators' authority to act on behalf of their constituents.
A pervasive culture of fear surrounds the permitting process, fostering a risk-averse environment that leads to fewer ambitious projects being proposed and creates significant hurdles for new small business owners and developers who may have less experience. Applicants may choose to focus on less complex or lower-risk projects, avoiding those that carry greater uncertainty but could also offer greater community benefits.
Modernizing the permitting system is difficult in part because the city charter rigidly defines many organizational structures, processes, and roles that can’t be changed by policymakers, even if outcomes are poor and clearly demonstrate the need for change. Permitting Progress recommends moving many of these structures, processes, and roles out of the charter and into the Administrative Code so that legislators can incrementally reform the system when permitting times are too slow, staff resources are poorly distributed, or technological change enables better systems.
How does the permitting system impact housing availability?
Lengthy permit processes can stall housing projects and jeopardize financing, worsening the existing housing shortage. A single appeal can delay a project for months or longer, making it challenging to meet the city’s housing demand. As delays accumulate and uncertainty prevails, developers’ costs increase. These higher costs often translate into higher prices for residents and unsteady employment for construction workers, exacerbating affordability issues.
The current system leads to inefficient use of resources. Instead of focusing on building, developers often spend considerable time and money navigating a convoluted permitting maze, incurring legal and architectural fees, and paying interest on loans. This inefficiency diverts funds away from actual housing construction while construction costs continue to escalate. In the meantime, San Franciscans are left with housing proposals stuck on the drawing board rather than new apartments they can live in. Moreover, public transportation, public schools, parks, and small businesses all benefit from nearby housing density — and are worse off when new housing is delayed.
You say that the permitting system hampers not just private development but also public projects.
Public infrastructure agencies such as the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and Public Works must also secure permits from city departments for bus lanes, cycling infrastructure, sidewalk widenings, and transit projects. A single appeal can stall infrastructure work for months or years, delaying projects intended to serve hundreds of thousands of residents.
The city has already implemented PermitSF to address some inefficiencies in the permitting system. How does charter reform relate to that initiative?
PermitSF is an initiative by Mayor Lurie to make San Francisco’s permitting process more efficient and accessible for both public and private development projects. It seeks to reduce unnecessary delays, clarify requirements, and modernize technology systems, thereby accelerating development timelines and fostering greater investment in the city.
While PermitSF has made some immediate improvements, it also highlights the need to address deeper structural issues in the city charter. SPUR’s recommendations can significantly bolster PermitSF by loosening the rigid organizational framework established in the city’s charter, which would allow departments and policymakers to respond to new challenges.
Additionally, charter reform is necessary to streamline the appeals process that currently allows multiple layers of redundant appeals for permits. Recalibrating how decision-making authority is organized will allow for adaptive practices and enhance coordination among city departments.
What are some charter reforms that would improve the permitting process?
We recommend three major themes for reform. The first is to shift certain departments and their procedures from the city charter to the Administrative Code. This change would provide policymakers greater flexibility to reorganize and streamline permitting operations without requiring public votes each time a change is needed. Allowing the Board of Supervisors to revisit outdated voter-adopted land use policies is another critical reform, so policymakers can adapt more quickly to current community needs. Last, SPUR advocates for simpler and narrower appeals processes based on project type and risk. This would streamline approvals while still allowing for meaningful community input.
These reforms would shift the focus from merely adhering to rigid procedures to achieving positive outcomes for residents.
How would the proposed charter reforms be implemented?
Moving forward with our recommendations would require the Board of Supervisors, perhaps in collaboration with the Mayor’s Office, to draft specific charter amendments that would go before voters for approval. This process would include legal reviews and community input to ensure the proposed changes are comprehensive and well-informed. If voters approve the reforms, the Board of Supervisors should act quickly to implement new structures and processes through the legislative process, including revising department structures and establishing tailored permit appeals.