PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSING

SF-CAMPAIGN art. III, ch. 4

in effect

SF Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.400 PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSING.

SEC. 3.400. PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSING. (a) EQUAL TREATMENT OF PERMIT APPLICANTS. It shall be the policy of the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, the Department of Public Works and the officers and employees of such departments to treat all permit applicants the same regardless of the relationship of the applicant and/or the applicant’s representatives to any officer or employee of the City and County and regardless of whether the applicant hires a permit consultant to provide permit consulting services. Intentional preferential treatment of any permit applicant and/or the applicant’s representatives by any officer or employee of the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, or the Department of Public Works shall subject the officer or employee to disciplinary action for official misconduct. (b) APPLICATION PRIORITY. It shall be the policy of the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, the Department of Public Works and the officers and employees of such departments to review, consider, and process all applications, revisions, corrections and other permit-related material in the order in which that type of material is received unless there is a written finding of a public policy basis for not doing so, such as the involvement of public funds in the project for which the permit is sought, or the response to a delay caused by an earlier procedural error in processing the permit or another permit for the same project. Absent such a finding, any officer or employee of the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, or the Department of Public Works who intentionally fails to review, consider, and process all applications, revisions, corrections, and other permit-related material in the order in which that type of material is received shall be subject to disciplinary action for official misconduct. The Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, and the Department of Public Works shall each adopt written guidelines for determining when there is a public policy basis for processing permit material out of order and shall periodically review such guidelines. For purposes of this Section 3.400, and any corresponding written guidelines, expediting of work consisting primarily of disability access improvements for real property shall qualify as a public policy basis for processing permit material out of order, on a priority basis. (c) PERIODIC REVIEW AND COORDINATION OF PERMIT PRIORITIZATION GUIDELINES. The Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, and the Department of Public Works shall review and update their respective permit prioritization guidelines as provided in this subsection (c). (1) Interdepartmental Permit Prioritization Task Force Review of Permit Prioritization Guidelines. (A) Establishment of Permit Prioritization Task Force. There is hereby established an interdepartmental Permit Prioritization Task Force (“Task Force”) consisting of five members. Four members of the Task Force shall be appointed by the Director of the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Director, the Public Works Director, and the President of the Board of Supervisors, respectively. All such appointees shall be City employees and shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority; the appointee of the President of the Board of Supervisors shall be an employee or official of the Board of Supervisors. The appointing authorities for the Task Force shall make their initial appointments no later than 60 days after the effective date of the ordinance in Board File No. 230167, creating the Task Force. The Director of the Permit Center or the Director’s designee shall also be a member of the Task Force and shall serve as chair of the Task Force. The Permit Center shall provide administrative support to the Task Force. (B) Powers and Duties of Task Force. The Task Force shall recommend permit prioritization guidelines for the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, and the Department of Public Works to the respective department heads and oversight commissions. The Task Force shall create a recommended Citywide list of prioritized permits and project types and shall use that list to recommend changes to the departments’ respective permit prioritization guidelines. The permit prioritization guidelines shall include a goal for the amount of time required for the department’s review of each priority permit type. (2) Department and Commission Review and Approval of Permit Prioritization Guidelines. The Building Inspection Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Public Works Commission shall approve the permit prioritization guidelines and any changes to such guidelines for the department each commission oversees. The department heads and oversight commissions shall consider the Task Force’s Citywide list of prioritized permits and project types and the Task Force’s recommendations in making modifications to the department’s prioritization guidelines. Each department shall retain discretion to designate department-specific prioritized permits. (3) No later than June 30, 2024, the Task Force shall approve the recommended Citywide list of prioritized permits and project types, make recommendations to the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, and the Department of Public Works for updates to their respective prioritization guidelines, and each such department and oversight commission shall approve any modifications to its prioritization guidelines. (4) Ongoing Review of Prioritization Guidelines. Following the first review process required by subsection (c)(3) of this Section 3.400, the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, and the Department of Public Works shall review their prioritization guidelines prior to June 30, 2026 and no later than June 30 every other year thereafter and, with commission approval, make any changes deemed necessary or appropriate. The Director of the Permit Center may reconvene the Task Force by providing notice to the appointing authorities of the Task Force members, upon determining that it is in the public interest to modify the recommended Citywide list prioritized permits and project types and/or to recommend modifications to one or more of the departments’ prioritization guidelines. (5) Data Collection and Reporting. The Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, and the Department of Public Works shall collect data on the processing time for each permit type included in their respective permit prioritization guidelines. On an annual basis at least 60 days prior to the reporting deadline to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors specified in this subsection (c)(5), such departments shall each transmit to the Director of the Permit Center data concerning the department’s average processing time for each prioritized permit type in the previous calendar year. The departments may separately report the average time the department is awaiting a response from the permit applicant per prioritized permit type, where such data is available. Where data is available, such departments shall also include data concerning the impact of prioritization on permit types that are not prioritized. Alternatively, the departments may provide the Director of the Permit Center direct access to their electronic permitting systems so that the Director may gather the required data. The Director of the Permit Center shall compile such data and transmit an annual report to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors no later than June 30, 2025, and every year thereafter no later than June 30. (6) Sunset. This subsection (c) shall expire by operation of law, and the Task Force shall terminate, on June 30, 2030, unless extended by ordinance. No later than January 1, 2030, the Director of the Permit Center shall submit a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor concerning reauthorization of this subsection (c). In the event that this subsection expires, the City Attorney shall cause it to be removed from the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code and shall renumber the subsections of this Section 3.400 to conform to the removal of subsection (c). (d) PERMIT PROCESSING CODE OF CONDUCT. No later than 60 days after the effective date of this Article, the Ethics Commission shall adopt a code of conduct for permit processing (the “Permit Processing Code of Conduct”) containing ethical guidelines for permit applicants, permit consultants, and officers and employees of the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, the and1 Department of Public Works. The Permit Processing Code of Conduct shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each department, and a copy shall be distributed to each officer of the City and County who makes or participates in making decisions related to permit applications. (Added by Ord. 115-04, File No. 040907, App. 7/1/2004; amended by Ord. 187-12 , File No. 111047, App. 9/11/2012, Eff. 10/11/2012; Ord. 93-23, File No. 230167, App. 5/26/2023, Eff. 6/26/2023; re-enacted by Proposition D, 3/5/2024, Eff. 4/12/2024, Oper. 10/12/2024) (Former Section 3.400 added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000; repealed by Proposition E, 11/4/2003) (Derivation: Former Administrative Code Section 16.5; added by Ord. 438-96, App. 11/8/96) Editor's Note: For the section added to this Chapter and designated as "3.400" by Ord. 98-14 , see Sec. 3.400A above. CODIFICATION NOTE 1. So in Proposition D, 3/5/2024.

SF Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.400A FINDINGS.

SEC. 3.400A. FINDINGS. The Board of Supervisors finds that bringing greater transparency to the City and County’s permitting process is essential to protect public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of that process. It is the purpose and intent of this Chapter 4 to impose reasonable disclosure requirements on permit consultants to provide the public with information about who is paying the consultants, the permits they are getting paid to obtain, the City employees with whom they have had contact in the course of obtaining the permits, and the political contributions they have made to City officials. (Added as Sec. 3.400 by Ord. 98-14 , File No. 130374, App. 6/26/2014, Eff. 7/26/2014; redesignated and amended by Ord. 6-17, File No. 161081, App. 1/20/2017, Eff. 2/19/2017; re-enacted by Proposition D, 3/5/2024, Eff. 4/12/2024, Oper. 10/12/2024) Editor's Note: This section was designated as "3.400" when enacted by Ord. 98-14. The section was redesignated by the codifier in order to avoid conflicting with previously existing material. Ord. 6-17 made the redesignation as “3.400A” official.

SF Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.403 AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF THIS CHAPTER.

SEC. 3.403. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF THIS CHAPTER. The voters may amend or repeal this Chapter 4. The Board of Supervisors may amend this Chapter 4 if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The amendment furthers the purposes of this Chapter; (b) The Ethics Commission approves the proposed amendment in advance by at least a four-fifths vote of all its members; (c) The proposed amendment is available for public review at least 30 days before the amendment is considered by the Board of Supervisors or any committee of the Board of Supervisors; and (d) The Board of Supervisors approves the proposed amendment by at least a two-thirds vote of all its members. (Added by Proposition D, 3/5/2024, Eff. 4/12/2024, Oper. 10/12/2024)

SF Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.405 DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 3.405. DEFINITIONS. “Client” means the person for whom permit consulting services are performed by a permit consultant. “Contact” means any communication, oral or written, including communication made through an agent, associate or employee. A “contact” shall not include a request for information, as long as the request does not include any attempt to influence an administrative or legislative decision. “Major project” means any project located in the City and County which has actual or estimated construction costs exceeding $1,000,000 and which requires a permit issued by the Department of Building Inspection or the Planning Department. Estimated construction costs shall be calculated in the same manner used to determine building permit fees under the Building Code. “Minor Project” means any project located in the City and County which requires a permit issued by the Entertainment Commission. “Permit consultant” is any individual who receives or is promised compensation to provide permit consulting services to commence on or after January 1, 2015 on a Major Project or a Minor Project. This includes any employee who receives compensation attributable to time spent on permit consulting services. This does not include: (1) The licensed architect or engineer of record for construction activity allowed or contemplated by the permit, or an employee of the architect or engineer; (2) The contractor who will be responsible for all construction activity associated with the requested permit; or (3) The employee or agent of an organization with tax exempt status under 26 United States Code Section 501(c)(3) communicating on behalf of that organization regarding the development of a project for that organization. “Permit consulting services” means any contact with the Department of Building Inspection, the Entertainment Commission, the Planning Department, or the Department of Public Works to help a permit applicant obtain a permit. (Added by Ord. 98-14 , File No. 130374, App. 6/26/2014, Eff. 7/26/2014; re-enacted by Proposition D, 3/5/2024, Eff. 4/12/2024, Oper. 10/12/2024) (Former Sec. 3.405 added by Ord. 18-03, File No. 020969, App. 2/7/2003; repealed by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)

SF Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.410 PERMIT CONSULTANT REGISTRATION AND DISCLOSURES.

SEC. 3.410. PERMIT CONSULTANT REGISTRATION AND DISCLOSURES. (a) REGISTRATION OF PERMIT CONSULTANTS REQUIRED. Permit consultants shall register with the Ethics Commission and comply with the disclosure requirements imposed by this Chapter. Such registration shall occur no later than five business days after providing permit consulting services, but the permit consultant shall register prior to providing any further permit consulting services. (b) REGISTRATION. At the time of initial registration each permit consultant shall report to the Ethics Commission the following information: (1) The name, business address, e-mail address, and business telephone number of the permit consultant; (2) The name, business address, e-mail address, and business telephone number of each client for whom the permit consultant is performing permit consulting services; (3) The name, business address, e-mail address, and business telephone number of the permit consultant’s employer, firm or business affiliation; and (4) Any other information required by the Ethics Commission consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Chapter. (c) PERMIT CONSULTANT DISCLOSURES. Beginning on April 15, 2015, each permit consultant shall file four quarterly reports, according to the following schedule: the permit consultant shall file a report on April 15 for the period starting January 1 and ending March 31; on July 15 for the period starting April 1 and ending June 30; on October 15 for the period starting July 1 and ending September 30; and on January 15 for the period starting October 1 and ending December 31. Each quarterly report shall contain the following: (1) The name, business address, e-mail address, and business telephone number of each person from whom the permit consultant or the permit consultant’s employer received or expected to receive economic consideration for permit consulting services during the reporting period, and the amount of economic consideration the permit consultant received or expected to receive; (2) For each contact with the Department of Building Inspection, the Entertainment Commission, the Planning Department, or the Department of Public Works in the course of providing permit consulting services during the reporting period: (A) The name of each officer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco with whom the permit consultant made contact; (B) A description of the permit sought or obtained, including the application number for the permit; and (C) The client on whose behalf the contact was made. (3) All political contributions of $100 or more made by the permit consultant or the permit consultant’s employer during the reporting period to an officer of the City and County, a candidate for such office, a committee controlled by such officer or candidate, a committee primarily formed to support or oppose such officer or candidate, or any committee primarily formed to support or oppose a ballot measure to be voted on only in San Francisco. (4) Any amendments to the permit consultant’s registration information required by Subsection (b). (5) Any other information required by the Ethics Commission consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Chapter. (Added by Ord. 98-14 , File No. 130374, App. 6/26/2014, Eff. 7/26/2014; re-enacted by Proposition D, 3/5/2024, Eff. 4/12/2024, Oper. 10/12/2024)

SF Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.415 PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.

SEC. 3.415. PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT. (a) If any permit consultant fails to submit any information required by this Chapter after any applicable deadline, the Ethics Commission shall, in addition to any other penalties or remedies established in this Chapter, impose a late filing fee of $50 per day after the deadline until the information is received by the Ethics Commission. The Executive Director of the Ethics Commission may reduce or waive a late filing fee if the Executive Director determines that the late filing was not willful and that enforcement will not further the purposes of this Chapter. The Ethics Commission shall deposit funds collected under this Section in the General Fund of the City and County of San Francisco. (b) Any person who violates this Chapter may be liable in an administrative proceeding before the Ethics Commission pursuant to Charter Section C3.699-13. In addition to the administrative penalties set forth in the Charter, the Ethics Commission may issue warning letters regarding potential violations of this Chapter to the permit consultant. (c) Any person or entity which knowingly or negligently violates this Chapter may be liable in a civil action brought by the City Attorney for an amount up to $5,000 per violation. (Added by Ord. 98-14 , File No. 130374, App. 6/26/2014, Eff. 7/26/2014; re-enacted and amended by Proposition D, 3/5/2024, Eff. 4/12/2024, Oper. 10/12/2024)

SF Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.420 ELECTRONIC FILING OF DISCLOSURES.

SEC. 3.420. ELECTRONIC FILING OF DISCLOSURES. The Ethics Commission may require electronic filing of any disclosure required under this Chapter 4. (Added by Proposition D, 3/5/2024, Eff. 4/12/2024, Oper. 10/12/2024) (Former Sec. 3.420 added by Ord. 98-14 , File No. 130374, App. 6/26/2014, Eff. 7/26/2014; repealed by Proposition D, 3/5/2024, Eff. 4/12/2024, Oper. 10/12/2024)

Source: City and County of San Francisco, Charter and Municipal Codes (American Legal Publishing, codelibrary.amlegal.com)URL: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_campaign/0-0-0-1747Fetched: 11/1/2026