Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Sf Code Streamline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances building-code streamlining ordinance removing redundant local requirements
Summary
The committee recommended amendments that would remove the Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act (while keeping specific geographic slope protections), rescind outdated commercial lighting standards, relax rooftop mechanical structure limits, and revert locally stricter driveway/sidewalk load standards to state code.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee voted Sept. 8 to forward a permit‑SF ordinance to the full Board of Supervisors that would remove a set of local building-code provisions the city now considers duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome.
Planning Department staff said the changes are part of a code‑streamlining effort to reduce permitting delays and align local rules with state standards. The ordinance removes the citywide Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act — while retaining two geographic slope-protection areas (Northwest Mount Sutro and Edgehill Mountain) and the building official’s discretion to require similar protections for specific projects — and reverts locally stricter driveway and sidewalk live-load requirements back to the California Building Code. The measure would also remove commercial lighting provisions preempted by federal regulation and relax San Francisco’s more restrictive rooftop mechanical‑penthouses sizing limits.
Tate Hanna, legislative affairs manager for the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), explained why the Slope Protection Act imposes time and cost burdens. Under current rules, projects that fall within defined hazards or exceed an average slope threshold may require geotechnical reports, third‑party reviews and, in some cases, a four‑member Structural Advisory Committee (geologist, geotechnical engineer, structural engineer and architect). DBI staff told the committee that such reviews can cost applicants tens of thousands of dollars (staff noted examples “upwards of $50,000”) and delay approvals by months; the proposed ordinance would keep the two mapped slope-protected areas but remove the citywide act that DBI said had been applied inconsistently.
Supporters from the housing and development community told the committee the step is reasonable in the context of the city’s housing supply goals. The Building Inspection Commission and the Code Advisory Committee reviewed the draft and recommended approval. The committee moved the ordinance to the full board with a unanimous recommendation.
