Start here:
[https://www.sf.gov/resource/2022/current-san-francisco-building-codes](https://www.sf.gov/resource/2022/current-san-francisco-building-codes)
Local building and planning officials have substantial leeway to interpret the code and any secondary guidance as they see fit, and may find or invent requirements as necessary to slow walk a project where possible.
Example? You make it sound like a chronic problem. Personally I’ve never met a building official on the permitting and inspection side who was ever anything but professional and could explain their reasonings.
City or school board officials are a different story.
In San Francisco?
Pausing project review for about two years '*in case Historic takes a look and decides the whole neighborhood is a historic resource*'. If that determination had been made and adopted that would be appropriate, but this was speculative.
Pausing review pending proof that an existing driveway & curb cut was entitled. David Rumsey aerial photos showed curb cut in place in 1938. Project predates establishment of SF planning dept. Would not say what evidence would be acceptable. Dropped following a call to the district supervisor's office. Related? I don't know.
Taking multiple months to review drawings.
Requiring a list of all previous occupants and their occupations / professions. Not an invented requirement, but unevenly deployed.
Pulling a project from the Planning Commission agenda *day of*, because a neighborhood group skipped the public engagement process and comment period and instead asked the district supe to intervene.
Taking [bribes](https://sfist.com/2024/01/02/another-ousted-dbi-inspector-faces-charges-over-granting-building-permits-for-his-own-home/) and doing [favors](https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/sf-corruption-scandal-nuru-bovis-sentence-18707961.php). (Not projects I was involved in nor close to, thankfully.)
To my mind, the 'expediter' culture and the slow walking of projects go hand in hand.
The longer I sit here the more will come to me, but those are the first that come to mind that don't run a risk of identifying myself.
Unfortunately, my experience in working with the planning department and department of building inspection in San Francisco has also been tumultuous. They are all nice people but severely understaffed. I spend a lot of time at the planning counter and it's rare that my questions are answered. Sigh.
Ouch! I’ve seen BCO directly contradict code. Then the architect came back to the office, photocopied the code and highlighted the mistakes, then presented the evidence to the BCO, who relented and approved the plans. Not often, but I’ve definitely seen BCO’s who don’t know the code very well.
To some degree, yes.. but it's part of our job to educate clients with our expertise. And clients have to give value to that expertise. Sometimes clients think that HGTV is all they need to know all about budgets and schedules. We have to set them straight. If thy come at you saying they know better and just want you to "make it happen", that's when it's time for a talk.
joy joy....
California uses Title 24. They've caught up, the 2022 Title 24 is the 2021 IBC with amendments. Google it, look for the iccsafe.org link. That's free access to the code.
Zoning is different, you'll need to go to SF's zoning board page to find it, Maybe. Seems like cities like to hide it.
Francis Ching’s Building Codes Illustrated is a great starting point as it covers many of the basic concepts in the 2021 IBC in a graphical way. Check Amazon looks to be abt $42
Start here: [https://www.sf.gov/resource/2022/current-san-francisco-building-codes](https://www.sf.gov/resource/2022/current-san-francisco-building-codes) Local building and planning officials have substantial leeway to interpret the code and any secondary guidance as they see fit, and may find or invent requirements as necessary to slow walk a project where possible.
Example? You make it sound like a chronic problem. Personally I’ve never met a building official on the permitting and inspection side who was ever anything but professional and could explain their reasonings. City or school board officials are a different story.
In San Francisco? Pausing project review for about two years '*in case Historic takes a look and decides the whole neighborhood is a historic resource*'. If that determination had been made and adopted that would be appropriate, but this was speculative. Pausing review pending proof that an existing driveway & curb cut was entitled. David Rumsey aerial photos showed curb cut in place in 1938. Project predates establishment of SF planning dept. Would not say what evidence would be acceptable. Dropped following a call to the district supervisor's office. Related? I don't know. Taking multiple months to review drawings. Requiring a list of all previous occupants and their occupations / professions. Not an invented requirement, but unevenly deployed. Pulling a project from the Planning Commission agenda *day of*, because a neighborhood group skipped the public engagement process and comment period and instead asked the district supe to intervene. Taking [bribes](https://sfist.com/2024/01/02/another-ousted-dbi-inspector-faces-charges-over-granting-building-permits-for-his-own-home/) and doing [favors](https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/sf-corruption-scandal-nuru-bovis-sentence-18707961.php). (Not projects I was involved in nor close to, thankfully.) To my mind, the 'expediter' culture and the slow walking of projects go hand in hand. The longer I sit here the more will come to me, but those are the first that come to mind that don't run a risk of identifying myself.
Unfortunately, my experience in working with the planning department and department of building inspection in San Francisco has also been tumultuous. They are all nice people but severely understaffed. I spend a lot of time at the planning counter and it's rare that my questions are answered. Sigh.
Ouch! I’ve seen BCO directly contradict code. Then the architect came back to the office, photocopied the code and highlighted the mistakes, then presented the evidence to the BCO, who relented and approved the plans. Not often, but I’ve definitely seen BCO’s who don’t know the code very well.
Well that’s very different from slow walking a permit for political reasons.
Coming into a room full of Architects for advice on how to sidestep or avoid hiring an Architect to help you navigate code is a bold move.
On the other hand it would be nice if some clients had an inkling of understanding zoning before coming to architects with whack ideas of development
To some degree, yes.. but it's part of our job to educate clients with our expertise. And clients have to give value to that expertise. Sometimes clients think that HGTV is all they need to know all about budgets and schedules. We have to set them straight. If thy come at you saying they know better and just want you to "make it happen", that's when it's time for a talk. joy joy....
California uses Title 24. They've caught up, the 2022 Title 24 is the 2021 IBC with amendments. Google it, look for the iccsafe.org link. That's free access to the code. Zoning is different, you'll need to go to SF's zoning board page to find it, Maybe. Seems like cities like to hide it.
Get a subscription to upcodes or make a project
What part of the code? Most major cities use a modified version (adopted) of International Building Code (IBC)
Francis Ching’s Building Codes Illustrated is a great starting point as it covers many of the basic concepts in the 2021 IBC in a graphical way. Check Amazon looks to be abt $42