Today, there is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle by Dustin Gardiner & Suzie Neilson titled, "627 days, just for the permit: This data shows the staggering timeline to build homes in S.F." Link below:
As an architect practicing in San Francisco, I've experienced these wait-times first hand on various projects.
San Francisco has a massive housing shortage the results of which can be seen in our current median SF home price of $1.6M and our breathtaking homeless population.
Wadda y'all think about this idea to fix the problem:
Duplicate the building department.
You would have two entities both of which have the power to issue a building permit. You don't have to get a permit from both - just one. Whichever one issues the permit first gets the building permit application fees. Buildings still have to meet code, but officials have to check that they meet code in a reasonable time-frame - or lose out on fees.
Whatever other departments causing bottlenecks get duplicated too: Public Utilities Commission, Planning Department, Historic Preservation, Fire Department, Department of Public Works. Planning wants to have a neighborhood meeting to review whether the windows not visible from the street can be vinyl instead of wood? Duplicate! PG&E wants to take 6 months to approve your temporary power permit? No problem, take away their right to a monopoly!
Everyday Architect
Dec 15, 22 12:00 am
Why would a government entity duplicate itself and cost the taxpayers double money to only offer the same level of service overall (1 permit per building)?
If permits were issued by private entities and the government simply regulated those entities through something like a license ... perhaps there'd be an argument for issuing more licenses for permitting agencies to increase competition. Is that what we're talking about? Article is behind a paywall so I haven't read it.
proto
Dec 15, 22 11:42 am
i'd rather go the "trade permit" route & just have architects self-certify...we already are on the hook anyway & the jurisdiction isn't taking liability ultimately either.
yeah, higher liability, but maybe higher fees too and maybe more relevance in the building world...BUT, also RIPE for more shenanigans than we see now, esp in a high finance payoff situation of development...so maybe not
Everyday Architect
Dec 15, 22 2:58 pm
Yeah, I can see that, but I'm not convinced it would be the best.
Ultimately, I think what needs to happen is someone needs to sit down the AHJs of the world and tell them to just calm down. Explain that they have no liability, they don't need to tick all these boxes they think they do, and that they should rely on the professional licensing (and liability) of the design professionals stamping the drawings. The only way I see that happening is if the AHJ gets their pants sued off them by some developer for costing them money for taking too long and they get thoroughly beat down and reprimanded in court for the things they are doing. And that's so far outside the realm of possibility it's comical.
Everyday Architect
Dec 15, 22 3:01 pm
My other thought, equally (if not more) ridiculous is the people suing the government for wasting their taxes. Something like "People of CA vs. DSA" and it ends up in the Supreme Court.
Wilma Buttfit
Dec 15, 22 12:52 am
No. How about you automatically get a permit if they take longer than X weeks to issue a permit.
Richard Balkins
Dec 15, 22 1:49 am
While I understand the concern, doing so would be much more concerning so it should be that if a permit review takes longer than a certain amount due to them without good cause, they should be responsible for reimbursing the fee to the applicant. I do believe projects need to be properly reviewed regardless who prepared the plans, and so forth.
natematt
Dec 15, 22 2:29 am
You'd think building departments would figure out how to better capitalize on increased demand for their business....
I had this plan checker, who according to pay transparency websites was working as many hours of overtime as he was working regular time, and getting paid for it... so just hire a second person make more money and get more done.
Wood Guy
Dec 15, 22 9:41 am
Or a private-party alternative, who can charge whatever they want but have to be insured in some way to make them responsible parties. It would be a class-based system, with those who can afford it getting faster service, but it would ease the burden on the public entity.
Wood Guy
Dec 15, 22 9:41 am
ETA: I see that EA had the same idea.
proto
Dec 15, 22 11:38 am
"with those who can afford it getting faster service"
yeah, hard no for me
that's a slippery slope inevitably greased by capitalist sociopathy
Everyday Architect
Dec 15, 22 2:36 pm
This isn't exactly the same scenario, but we sort of already have faster service for those who can afford it. At least that's part of the marketing for why you should hire a permit expeditor, no?
proto
Dec 15, 22 11:52 pm
Not sure expeditors are faster, but using them certainly delegates the annoyances
b3tadine[sutures]
Dec 16, 22 3:48 am
Doesn't NYC have a thing where you self review, or have a peer review process?
tduds
Dec 16, 22 12:04 pm
Not exactly what you're saying but I've worked with some smaller jurisdictions who outsource their review to private consultants. In almost every case my experience with these consultants has been faster and more positive than with internal departments.
JLC-1
Dec 15, 22 3:19 pm
When I left Chile 20 years ago, they were starting with the following system:
There's independent plan reviewers, licensed by the state or municipality.
The architect or owner hire a reviewer, that has to deliver a report,
This report goes with the permit plans and documents to the build dept. which has a max of 15 days to issue the permit, and the municipal fees are cut 30% from what it would be if you submit without the ind. rev. report.
This process is mandatory for all occupancies larger than 100 people.
Seems to be working pretty well, and the 30% permit fee cut alleviates the hiring fee. Also, you can have the consultant looking at progress intervals for efficiency, so it's not a mammoth revision all at once.
It's still "those who can afford it", but I don't think an affordable project would take 600 days in building dept review. If you can afford an architect you can afford another consultant that would make your project move faster.
I would love to read the article if it wasn't behind a paywall
msparchitect
Dec 15, 22 4:05 pm
I'd prefer Autodesk to build a Revit plugin that can check for local code and zoning requirements. People who pass that jump way in line. Automate all of this.
Chad Miller
Dec 15, 22 4:28 pm
That could be very difficult unless you're doing a prescriptive path to compliance. Even then there are multiple ways to meet the code(s). It would be nice though!
b3tadine[sutures]
Dec 15, 22 6:46 pm
I can see Upcodes getting into this, and creating a plug in.
tduds
Dec 16, 22 12:04 pm
No way I'd trust Autodesk to do that correctly.
Chad Miller
Dec 16, 22 1:19 pm
Both Upcodes and Autodesk have already collaborated and created a Revit add in to assist with building codes. I don't know of anyone that is using it though.
b3tadine[sutures]
Dec 16, 22 1:34 pm
Cool! I'm all about it. I already like the code calculators on Upcodes.
proto
Dec 16, 22 2:40 pm
Upcodes has it's own issues even before it sticks a toe into revit...their caveat of "do your own calcs" can be significant. I discovered that their allowable area frontage increase calculator doesn't reduce the greatest clear frontage input to 30' & you can end with a factor greater than 75% for frontage bonus for an occupancy group.
luvu
Dec 15, 22 6:37 pm
Regulate and privatize but also keep option for consumers if they want to obtain the permit via local authorities. It's been done in many parts of the world for decades !
b3tadine[sutures]
Dec 15, 22 6:44 pm
Privatization of a public need is a fucking bad idea. It's what capitalists want; break the system and offload to capital interests. Bad.
luvu
Dec 15, 22 7:10 pm
and the system now is working perfect, is it ? and give me a good reason why a building inspector cant operate as what an architec/engineer does ?
b3tadine[sutures]
Dec 15, 22 10:39 pm
What part of what I wrote did you not understand? Capital seeks to break systems, governance, to then point to the failure and then say to the people, see we told you, bureaucracy sucks.
luvu
Dec 15, 22 11:29 pm
@b3ta .. calm the f@uck down.
b3tadine[sutures]
Dec 15, 22 11:46 pm
No.
Richard Balkins
Dec 16, 22 4:42 am
Honestly, if architects are going to self-review and skip the permit review, they are going to need to undergo ICC and State certification exams on the exams as a plan reviewer on not just ICC model code but state codes and re-certify every code cycle and require a mid-cycle course. I would support a 3-year license term that would somewhat sync with code cycles and there would also be the other regular CE requirements but this needs to be a mandatory component. In addition, they may need to meet building inspector training certification to certify inspections. I'm less concerned about that part but I think its fair. ARE is fine to a point but its about more than building codes and the building code exams is outright about the codes but it needs to be not just the ICC model codes but the state specific codes as well for each state. We don't have a singular code that is the same throughout the U.S.
Richard Balkins
Dec 16, 22 4:47 am
However, I believe the building departments should be public employees working for the public (not private entities), and the code division is a public agency.
Self-certify/review can be ripe for abuse given the inherent conflict of interest issues. The role of plan reviewer and building official is for an independent person independent of the project and client who serves the public not the person.
The qualification of who is employed in those roles is another matter of discussion but I'll leave that for another time... unless someone forces the discussion.
bennyc
Dec 16, 22 7:12 am
I don't think the issue is the actual building department, I think its the other agencies on projects that bottleneck approvals, for ex: In new york city, if you need a new building project, even a single family home, you need to go through dept of transportation approval for sidewalk / curb cuts, or builders pavement plans. You need to go through parks department for street tree planting, you need to go to Dept of Environmental protection for storm sewer connection. In additional there is numerous small filings and approvals or documents you need to obtain such as house number certification which forces you to go to city clerks, zoning exhibits which you need to go to a title company etc etc.
In other words, while you might be on point with your design, drawings, code and zoning for the house, you have no chance of approval unless all of the above items are satisfied, which take 6 months to a year to obtain.
I never had issues with building departments, but had issues with these other agencies, where a 1 drawing review takes up to 8 weeks sometimes.
Wilma Buttfit
Dec 16, 22 9:17 am
Have a current project where the zoning department requires approval from the building department before they will even look at it. The building department requires approval from the zoning department before they will even look at it.
b3tadine[sutures]
Dec 16, 22 1:36 pm
Nuts.
graphemic
Dec 16, 22 1:12 pm
Does anyone know why AHJs don't hire more people or expand their capacity to meet demand? I believe there's an answer, I'm very curious what it is.
Chad Miller
Dec 16, 22 1:17 pm
Money. Their departments aren't given the funding to expand their staff.
graphemic
Dec 16, 22 6:31 pm
This is my assumption as well. Again, I don't know for sure.
But this is my assumption and in that case, I can't fathom how this is a difficult problem to solve. Let's fund the building department. Seeking out private market solutions when our public institutions are underfunded (intentionally, I assume to appeal to those seeking private market solutions) is at best naïve.
Today, there is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle by Dustin Gardiner & Suzie Neilson titled, "627 days, just for the permit: This data shows the staggering timeline to build homes in S.F." Link below:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf...
As an architect practicing in San Francisco, I've experienced these wait-times first hand on various projects.
San Francisco has a massive housing shortage the results of which can be seen in our current median SF home price of $1.6M and our breathtaking homeless population.
Wadda y'all think about this idea to fix the problem:
Duplicate the building department.
You would have two entities both of which have the power to issue a building permit. You don't have to get a permit from both - just one. Whichever one issues the permit first gets the building permit application fees. Buildings still have to meet code, but officials have to check that they meet code in a reasonable time-frame - or lose out on fees.
Whatever other departments causing bottlenecks get duplicated too: Public Utilities Commission, Planning Department, Historic Preservation, Fire Department, Department of Public Works. Planning wants to have a neighborhood meeting to review whether the windows not visible from the street can be vinyl instead of wood? Duplicate! PG&E wants to take 6 months to approve your temporary power permit? No problem, take away their right to a monopoly!
Why would a government entity duplicate itself and cost the taxpayers double money to only offer the same level of service overall (1 permit per building)?
If permits were issued by private entities and the government simply regulated those entities through something like a license ... perhaps there'd be an argument for issuing more licenses for permitting agencies to increase competition. Is that what we're talking about? Article is behind a paywall so I haven't read it.
i'd rather go the "trade permit" route & just have architects self-certify...we already are on the hook anyway & the jurisdiction isn't taking liability ultimately either.
yeah, higher liability, but maybe higher fees too and maybe more relevance in the building world...BUT, also RIPE for more shenanigans than we see now, esp in a high finance payoff situation of development...so maybe not
Yeah, I can see that, but I'm not convinced it would be the best.
Ultimately, I think what needs to happen is someone needs to sit down the AHJs of the world and tell them to just calm down. Explain that they have no liability, they don't need to tick all these boxes they think they do, and that they should rely on the professional licensing (and liability) of the design professionals stamping the drawings. The only way I see that happening is if the AHJ gets their pants sued off them by some developer for costing them money for taking too long and they get thoroughly beat down and reprimanded in court for the things they are doing. And that's so far outside the realm of possibility it's comical.
My other thought, equally (if not more) ridiculous is the people suing the government for wasting their taxes. Something like "People of CA vs. DSA" and it ends up in the Supreme Court.
No. How about you automatically get a permit if they take longer than X weeks to issue a permit.
While I understand the concern, doing so would be much more concerning so it should be that if a permit review takes longer than a certain amount due to them without good cause, they should be responsible for reimbursing the fee to the applicant. I do believe projects need to be properly reviewed regardless who prepared the plans, and so forth.
You'd think building departments would figure out how to better capitalize on increased demand for their business....
I had this plan checker, who according to pay transparency websites was working as many hours of overtime as he was working regular time, and getting paid for it... so just hire a second person make more money and get more done.
Or a private-party alternative, who can charge whatever they want but have to be insured in some way to make them responsible parties. It would be a class-based system, with those who can afford it getting faster service, but it would ease the burden on the public entity.
ETA: I see that EA had the same idea.
"with those who can afford it getting faster service"
yeah, hard no for me
that's a slippery slope inevitably greased by capitalist sociopathy
This isn't exactly the same scenario, but we sort of already have faster service for those who can afford it. At least that's part of the marketing for why you should hire a permit expeditor, no?
Not sure expeditors are faster, but using them certainly delegates the annoyances
Doesn't NYC have a thing where you self review, or have a peer review process?
Not exactly what you're saying but I've worked with some smaller jurisdictions who outsource their review to private consultants. In almost every case my experience with these consultants has been faster and more positive than with internal departments.
When I left Chile 20 years ago, they were starting with the following system:
There's independent plan reviewers, licensed by the state or municipality.
The architect or owner hire a reviewer, that has to deliver a report,
This report goes with the permit plans and documents to the build dept. which has a max of 15 days to issue the permit, and the municipal fees are cut 30% from what it would be if you submit without the ind. rev. report.
This process is mandatory for all occupancies larger than 100 people.
Seems to be working pretty well, and the 30% permit fee cut alleviates the hiring fee. Also, you can have the consultant looking at progress intervals for efficiency, so it's not a mammoth revision all at once.
It's still "those who can afford it", but I don't think an affordable project would take 600 days in building dept review. If you can afford an architect you can afford another consultant that would make your project move faster.
I would love to read the article if it wasn't behind a paywall
I'd prefer Autodesk to build a Revit plugin that can check for local code and zoning requirements. People who pass that jump way in line. Automate all of this.
That could be very difficult unless you're doing a prescriptive path to compliance. Even then there are multiple ways to meet the code(s). It would be nice though!
I can see Upcodes getting into this, and creating a plug in.
No way I'd trust Autodesk to do that correctly.
Both Upcodes and Autodesk have already collaborated and created a Revit add in to assist with building codes. I don't know of anyone that is using it though.
Cool! I'm all about it. I already like the code calculators on Upcodes.
Upcodes has it's own issues even before it sticks a toe into revit...their caveat of "do your own calcs" can be significant. I discovered that their allowable area frontage increase calculator doesn't reduce the greatest clear frontage input to 30' & you can end with a factor greater than 75% for frontage bonus for an occupancy group.
Regulate and privatize but also keep option for consumers if they want to obtain the permit via local authorities. It's been done in many parts of the world for decades !
Privatization of a public need is a fucking bad idea. It's what capitalists want; break the system and offload to capital interests. Bad.
and the system now is working perfect, is it ? and give me a good reason why a building inspector cant operate as what an architec/engineer does ?
What part of what I wrote did you not understand? Capital seeks to break systems, governance, to then point to the failure and then say to the people, see we told you, bureaucracy sucks.
@b3ta .. calm the f@uck down.
No.
Honestly, if architects are going to self-review and skip the permit review, they are going to need to undergo ICC and State certification exams on the exams as a plan reviewer on not just ICC model code but state codes and re-certify every code cycle and require a mid-cycle course. I would support a 3-year license term that would somewhat sync with code cycles and there would also be the other regular CE requirements but this needs to be a mandatory component. In addition, they may need to meet building inspector training certification to certify inspections. I'm less concerned about that part but I think its fair. ARE is fine to a point but its about more than building codes and the building code exams is outright about the codes but it needs to be not just the ICC model codes but the state specific codes as well for each state. We don't have a singular code that is the same throughout the U.S.
However, I believe the building departments should be public employees working for the public (not private entities), and the code division is a public agency.
Self-certify/review can be ripe for abuse given the inherent conflict of interest issues. The role of plan reviewer and building official is for an independent person independent of the project and client who serves the public not the person.
The qualification of who is employed in those roles is another matter of discussion but I'll leave that for another time... unless someone forces the discussion.
I don't think the issue is the actual building department, I think its the other agencies on projects that bottleneck approvals, for ex: In new york city, if you need a new building project, even a single family home, you need to go through dept of transportation approval for sidewalk / curb cuts, or builders pavement plans. You need to go through parks department for street tree planting, you need to go to Dept of Environmental protection for storm sewer connection. In additional there is numerous small filings and approvals or documents you need to obtain such as house number certification which forces you to go to city clerks, zoning exhibits which you need to go to a title company etc etc.
In other words, while you might be on point with your design, drawings, code and zoning for the house, you have no chance of approval unless all of the above items are satisfied, which take 6 months to a year to obtain.
I never had issues with building departments, but had issues with these other agencies, where a 1 drawing review takes up to 8 weeks sometimes.
Have a current project where the zoning department requires approval from the building department before they will even look at it. The building department requires approval from the zoning department before they will even look at it.
Nuts.
Does anyone know why AHJs don't hire more people or expand their capacity to meet demand? I believe there's an answer, I'm very curious what it is.
Money. Their departments aren't given the funding to expand their staff.
This is my assumption as well. Again, I don't know for sure. But this is my assumption and in that case, I can't fathom how this is a difficult problem to solve. Let's fund the building department. Seeking out private market solutions when our public institutions are underfunded (intentionally, I assume to appeal to those seeking private market solutions) is at best naïve.