Cyril Yu, Department of Building Inspection
Ex-Department of Building Inspection plan-checker Cyril Yu, seen here at a 2019 city meeting, was this month federally charged for an alleged yearslong bribery scheme.

When ex-Department of Building Inspection plan checkers Rudy Pada and Cyril Yu were federally charged this month for allegedly benefitting from a longstanding bribery scheme, none of their former colleagues was surprised. 

They had long predicted this day. They even predicted that Yu would wear his ubiquitous puffer vest to his arraignment. He did.

The goings-on within the building department are arcane and complex, as was the investigation the feds undertook to unearth this alleged bribery scheme. But the scheme itself is not complex: Pada and Yu are charged with allegedly accepting meals, drinks, bribes and kickbacks to help wealthy developers move projects through the building department’s notoriously sclerotic process — that’s all. 

“As part of the scheme, Co-conspirator #3 would pay Yu between $1,200 and $1,700 in cash for helping approve building plans for Co-conspirator #3’s company,” reads the Nov. 2 charging document. “Co-conspirator #3 would pay Yu in cash, typically during drives to lunch together.”  

Yu’s erstwhile colleagues aren’t surprised, but they are confused. We’ve written it before, but the cost of doing corruption would appear to be one of the few remaining bargains in San Francisco. Yu comes from a family of means, and earned a solid living at the department (nearly $222,000 in total pay and benefits in 2020). It is unclear why he would purportedly feel the need to resort to that ultimate trope of corruption, the cash-filled envelope. He did not return Mission Local’s email or text. 

Yu’s family, in fact, owns at least five properties around the city — and, going through the building department’s own records for these sites, oddities abound. 

In what appears to be a direct contravention of the building department’s code of ethics, in June 2020 Yu approved a permit for work on a Lombard Street home owned by the Carson and Irene Yu Revocable Trust — his parents. 

“I will request to be recused from any issue in which I, a member of my family, or a close personal acquaintance has an interest,” reads the operative section of the DBI’s ethics code. 

But that didn’t happen on Lombard Street.

The reroofing permit in question lists the job at $13,000, so it’s not exactly a king’s ransom (though analyzing the value of a project is, in fact, a key element of a plan-checker’s job). And, while “reroofing” is sometimes used as a guise by bad actors to undertake major reconstruction, before-and-after photos of the Lombard Street home reveal a new roof and no more. 

Rather, in this case, time was money. Yu’s former colleagues point out that in mid-2020, the Building Department was mired in a lockdown, and it was extremely difficult to obtain over-the-counter permits; months-long delays were commonplace. 

But not on this project. The permit was filed on June 4, Yu approved it on June 5 and it was issued on June 8 — a snappy turnaround in good times, let alone during the dog days of the pandemic. 

The San Francisco Standard’s Michael Barba recently published a thorough exposé of building inspector Van Zeng, who has been suspended after he purportedly signed off on multiple properties owned by his family members. In an act of remarkable synchronicity, the inspector who signed the final inspection on the reroofing permit for the Yu family’s Lombard home was none other than Van Zeng. 

A sample of a rental agreement.

Yu’s fingerprints are not directly on the other four San Francisco properties his family owns that Mission Local identified. But there are many red flags — and the biggest and reddest and most widespread of those red flags comes in the personage of Bernie Curran. 

Curran is currently serving a federal prison term stemming from a bribery conviction (he’s also on the hook for a two-year prison term for state-level perjury charges). He took money from developer Sia Tahbazof, who was recently hit with federal charges that he was also paying off Pada and Yu. If the feds’ charges are true, then Tahbazof essentially achieved vertical integration at the Department of Building Inspection: He purportedly owned the guys approving his plans and the guy who’d be out inspecting them in the field.  

For years before the hammer fell, Curran was a larger-than-life figure within the building department, boisterous and jocular and so self-assured in the overt corruption that he was engaging in that former colleagues recall him generously re-gifting the gift cards he’d been handed “on the job.” 

The man (kinda sorta) affectionately known as “Crazy Bernie” by his colleagues established a cottage industry of gallivanting across town and signing off on permits and final inspections. This is suspect and unusual; district inspectors are generally supposed to do this, not senior inspectors like Curran — and, especially, not out-of-district senior inspectors. 

Curran had been doing this long enough that his propensities, specifically, inspired DBI rules in 2014 regarding who should and should not do inspections. He clearly contravened the rules that were created because of his own behavior, and continued to do as he pleased for years. Within the department, there was even a term for inspectors bucking the chain of command and/or traveling out of their districts to sign off on work: “A specialist.” 

Spotting Curran on a building’s inspection record is a bit like seeing G. Gordon Liddy as a scheduled speaker on an ethics panel: It stops you in your tracks, and is a clear indicator of profound potential problems. Let the record show that Curran is all over the records for the Yu family’s homes. 

And Curran is not only here, he’s doing Curran things. At a home the Yus own on Eucalyptus Drive, for example, Curran assigned himself to the property — never a good sign — and, on that very same day, signed the final inspection on a $25,000 bathroom remodel. 

A photo of four officials holding a commendation.
Upon being named Department of Building Inspection employee of the quarter in April 2016, senior inspector Bernie Curran, on the far right, said “It is a pleasure and privilege to serve the people of San Francisco on a daily basis.” From left: then-Department of Building Inspection director Tom Hui, then-Building Inspection Commissioner Frank Lee and then-deputy director Dan Lowrey.

In 2016, a complaint was registered regarding a 24th Avenue property co-owned by Cyril Yu and his parents. “Caller believes [address] has work beyond the scope of the permit being done.” 

That complaint was opened on May 31 by Chris Schroeder, the building inspector then overseeing that district. But, on June 2, it was yanked away by senior inspector Bernie Curran, who emphatically quashed it, even writing “case closed” in the notes. 

Tracked down for comment, Schroeder, who no longer works for the building department, said he could not recall this particular instance of Curran bigfooting him and ameliorating a complaint on a connected individual’s property. That’s because “this happened many times.” 

The permits on this 24th Avenue home — which Curran claimed were all being adhered to in justifying his vehement spiking of the complaint — were all, in fact, being overseen by Curran.

In March 2017, he signed off on a $20,000 kitchen remodel — which had had no prior DBI field inspections. 

Two months later, he signed off on a $250,000, three-floor horizontal extension and interior remodel — with no recorded prior DBI field inspections. This was a big, complex job; there were no fewer than 16 special inspections mandated here, which were undertaken privately. But Curran’s final inspection appears to be the only one undertaken by DBI personnel. 

The good news: A foundation upgrade on the site actually does have four recorded DBI field inspections. The bad news: Bernie Curran did them all. 

A sample of an inspection report.

Curran is currently a federal inmate. Yu no longer works at DBI either; he left two years ago, after having taken an extended leave. Whatever air cover he had at the department appears to be gone. 

So, when a complaint was called in on Yu’s 24th Avenue property this month, nobody was able to wave a magic wand and make it go away. Quite the contrary: The complaint was assigned to the department’s “investigation team,” and a Notice of Violation was slapped on the building.  

Belatedly, the actions Curran undertook on multiple Yu family properties have been red-flagged; both the Eucalyptus and 24th Avenue sites came up in the ongoing departmental audit of Curran’s work. Letters will be sent and questions will be asked. 

DBI officials, we are told, took the liberty of viewing Yu’s 24th Avenue property via Google Earth, and noticed it appears to have deviated from its approved plans. 

Years after the fact, it appears there will be inspections here. And, perhaps, introspection: If the building department is serious about “close personal acquaintances” not working on each other’s properties, it might want to scour the records to see who was approving work on the Yu family homes. Some have left the department — some have been incarcerated or are facing time — but some have not. 

The Department of Building Inspection, it seems, will take a hard look at all these properties. They may not like what they find. Yu’s colleagues would not be surprised.

Follow Us

Managing Editor/Columnist. Joe was born in San Francisco, raised in the Bay Area, and attended U.C. Berkeley. He never left.

“Your humble narrator” was a writer and columnist for SF Weekly from 2007 to 2015, and a senior editor at San Francisco Magazine from 2015 to 2017. You may also have read his work in the Guardian (U.S. and U.K.); San Francisco Public Press; San Francisco Chronicle; San Francisco Examiner; Dallas Morning News; and elsewhere.

He resides in the Excelsior with his wife and three (!) kids, 4.3 miles from his birthplace and 5,474 from hers.

The Northern California branch of the Society of Professional Journalists named Eskenazi the 2019 Journalist of the Year.

Join the Conversation

16 Comments

  1. Good work Joe.

    Cyril Yu’s father, Carson Yu, has been a frequent expediter at DBI and a friend of former Director Tom Hui. He was also one of the speaker’s at the 8/21/13 BIC meeting, who spoke in support of Hui’s appointment as Director (Rodrigo Santos was another.) Here’s a link:

    https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/18222?view_id=14&redirect=true&h=1a0993343c3386365da098e52ef5c559

    The recommendation of a very reputable recruitment company was subsequently quashed in favor of Hui by the Angus McCarthy led BIC. McCarthy was the newly selected BIC President and the representative of the Residential Builders’ Assoc.

    Soon afterward (2014), Carson Yu’s son, Cyril, and daughter, Michelle, were hired by new Director Hui to plan check engineer positions at DBI. The circumstances of these hires remain mysterious, but, at the very least, this looks suspiciously like a quid pro quo. (Engineering positions at DBI can be lucrative and undemanding for some, although there are good employees, too.) Cyril and Michelle were then promoted rapidly to managerial positions.

    Hui went on to hire and promote many friends and relatives at DBI, many as temporary hires who were later given permanent positions , with little or no testing. The City Attorney’s Office knows all about this, but has never done anything about it, other than requesting the Mayor to fire Hui.

    +2
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
    1. This is not meant to say that Carson Yu was responsible for Hui’s appointment as DBI’s Director. Walter Wong was by far the most influential in that appointment. He cultivated and got promotions for Hui for years, while Hui worked in the Plan Check Div. at DBI.

      +1
      0
      votes. Sign in to vote
    2. I believe you go to DBI a lot like me and you are 100% correct that Cyril Yu, Michelle Yu ( his sister) and Irene Yu ( mom) are all working for the City Building Department. How did Cyril and Michelle got hired? that’s mystery.

      0
      0
      votes. Sign in to vote
  2. great reporting, Joe. keep it up. can’t imagine how many other layers of the onion there must be, and if and when peeled, reveal widespread graft and corruption.

    +1
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  3. 1. I’m glad the corruption is getting ferreted out.
    2. The incredibly complex processes around permitting and DBI encourage corruption.

    It’s almost impossible to operate sanely within the current system, so developers/homeowners are incentivized to seek out permit expediters/any help they can get to try to move through the system faster.

    In addition to rooting out corrupt practices, the city needs to simplify the path for homeowners/developers to build (I’m talking about post-planning). The incentive for bribery on the part of the developer/home owner is outrageously strong because the default system is almost completely non-functioning (too many checkpoints, too few checkers, project backlogs that stretch into the years). Why do we have a system that’s so complex there are people operating outside of it as “permit expediters”? That should not be a legal job (to my understanding there are both the legal ones and the illegal ones, but even the legal ones seem pretty sketchy.)

    The city could start by re-building their entire permitting and inspections process to better align with other cities/best practice. This would allow homeowners and developers to complete approved projects within timelines/prices closer to those seen in other cities.

    +1
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  4. Joe, you need to write a book This is fascinating as fuck and I would buy it in a second This goes on in every big city in US

    I had one experience with DBI I worked as an insurance fraud investigator for the state We got a suspected fraud tip on a developer that he was reporting no wages for a construction company that he owned but did several big public works projects and buildings I conservatively estimated he owed our agency about eight million dollars and he withheld no taxes or other contributions like social security He owed a lot of people a lot of money But DBI didn’t care that this was happening and stonewalled me I retired around that time but nothing was done

    +1
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  5. Joe,

    I think that instead of indicting the developers who have been extorted in this town since the Gold Rush that the City should pay them back everything that a municipal employee ever soaked them for plus interest and damages.

    Go Niners !!

    h.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  6. DO NOT PRINT

    I knew Bernie’s parents. His father, Bernard Curran,Sr., is deceased. He would have been devastated. He also worked for the Department of Building Inspection.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  7. The inspection process is complex and time consuming. As the results, it is costly to get the job done. That is why the bribery initiated because the owner(s) wants to save money. Despite of what the owner(s) does, inspector should not take the bribes. This is not new. Money is the source of evil isn’t it?

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  8. Good work Joe! Keep digging. The Feds have been the new sheriff in town and are uncovering more corrupt players who are snitching to save themselves. The good citizens and good employees of San Francisco are tired of this pay to play game. Time to clean house- and it’s been a long time coming.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  9. Joe: You’re a good reporter. San Francisco City Hall needs good reporting. This corruption scandal just keeps growing and you have to wonder if the mayor and board of supes are implicated.

    I hope you and Mission Local jump on this story with both feet, before next year’s election. Please.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  10. Every single city employee is milking their cash cow for all it’s worth. This is why someone like Bernie Curran can operate openly and notoriously. Every single person that knew what he was doing was trimming their own fat in one way or another. If they shined a spotlight on Curran or Yu that would inevitably come too close to exposing their own malfeasance. They certainly don’t catch all of the corrupt ones, just the greediest of the greediest.

    0
    -1
    votes. Sign in to vote
      1. This is based on a career in public service that included work across and with multiple city agencies and departments over many years. And to be clear, I’m not claiming that everyone is running a scam akin to those of Curran or Yu, but rather that they are benefitting in some way from the corrupt actions of others. For example, in one agency for which I worked, covid sick days were treated as entitlements to be used so as not to “leave any money on the table.” They were treated this way by employees, supervisors, and managers.

        0
        0
        votes. Sign in to vote
        1. Mitch,
          If you worked for the City, as you say, and “every single city employee is milking their cash cow for all it’s worth”, then you must have been doing the same. Have you returned all the fat you trimmed?

          +1
          0
          votes. Sign in to vote
Leave a comment
Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *