San Francisco DBI operates a stratified permitting system. Over-the-Counter (OTC) review — the fastest track — handles more than 90% of permits processed by DBI per the City Controller's FY25 Annual Performance Results report, and roughly 63% of OTC permits clear within two business days. But OTC eligibility is a procedural test, not a scope test: a project qualifies only if each required department can complete its plan review in under one hour. That deceptively simple rule resolves into a half-dozen practical gates — a roughly $200,000 valuation ceiling, the 45-year historic-resource screening, the Property Information Map A* designation, the §311/312 neighborhood-notification trigger, the change-of-occupancy threshold, and the gravity-load alteration line. This guide explains the four review tracks, the four front doors, what clears OTC and what doesn't, and the design decisions that determine which track your project lands on. It's written from an architect's chair and synthesized against primary sources.
The four review tracks
San Francisco DBI processes building permits through four distinct review tracks. Architects must distinguish between them at the front end because choosing the wrong track wastes weeks of project time.
- Track 1 — Over-the-Counter (OTC), Form 8. Hand-carried, same-visit review at 49 South Van Ness, or filed through PermitSF / contractor portals for permit types now mandated online. Issued same day or within 1–2 business days when no station rejects. Handles 90%+ of permits per FY25 data.
- Track 2 — Enhanced In-House Review / Pre-Plan Check. Launched July 1, 2022 to handle small-to-medium projects that exceed the one-hour OTC test but do not justify a full In-House cycle. Categories and current operational status are best confirmed directly with DBI Plan Review Services.
- Track 3 — In-House Review, Form 3. Full plan check by an assigned DBI reviewer with parallel sister-agency review. Since January 1, 2024 DBI has conducted 100% Electronic Plan Review using Bluebeam Studio sessions, which permit simultaneous inter-agency markup.
- Track 4 — Site Permit + Addenda, Form 1 or Form 2. The traditional bifurcated path for the largest and most complex projects, governed by SF Building Code §106A.3.2.4 and DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-032. The applicant first obtains a Site Permit approving project scope and Planning entitlements, then submits sequential Addenda for grading, architectural, MEP, and so on.
Practically, the Form 3/8 application is one physical document with two checkboxes — Form 3 for in-house/with-notification, Form 8 for OTC. Many practitioners colloquially call it "the pink form." The Site Permit + Addenda track is incompatible with OTC, but architects should know it exists because borderline OTC projects sometimes get pushed all the way to Site Permit at intake.
The four front doors
There are now four ways to begin an SF permit application. Choosing the right one is the first decision an applicant makes:
- The PermitSF online portal (launched February 13, 2026, built on OpenGov). Initial scope: in-kind doors, in-kind windows, in-kind siding, fire alarms, and sprinkler permits, plus special events. Expansion to additional fire permits, residential remodels, and business signage is targeted for 2026. As of February 13, 2026 the Permit Center no longer accepts in-person applications for in-kind door, window, or siding replacements.
- Online contractor instant-issuance portals. Licensed contractors registered with DBI can pull electrical, plumbing/mechanical, kitchen and bath remodel, re-roof, boiler, and SolarAPP+ residential solar permits online for instant issuance. A surcharge of up to 2.5% of permit fees applies.
- In-person OTC review at the Permit Center, 49 South Van Ness Avenue, 2nd Floor — the physical hub for all in-person OTC review, consolidating 23 service areas from previously separate DBI, Planning, DPW, and DPH counters since July 2021.
- In-House Review or Site Permit + Addenda for projects that exceed the one-hour OTC test — formal plan check with assigned reviewers (Track 3) or the bifurcated AB-032 process (Track 4).
The one-hour test
The operating eligibility rule for OTC is procedural rather than scope-based: a project qualifies for OTC only if each required department can complete its plan review in less than one hour. SFFD's published OTC examples — TI demolitions, small architectural TIs that don't affect fire-rated construction, signage — all share that procedural test. Planning, DBI structural review, Fire, DPH Environmental Health, SFPUC, and Public Works each apply the test independently to the scope referred to them. If any single station exceeds the hour, the project routes off OTC.
What this means for design: a project's OTC-qualifying status is itself a design decision. Keeping the scope tight, avoiding cross-disciplinary triggers, and front-loading documentation are the practical levers an architect uses to keep a project on the OTC track. The half-dozen sections below catalog the most common reasons projects fall off.
Gate 1 — The $200,000 practical valuation ceiling
There is no published valuation cap for OTC review. Practitioner experience puts the practical ceiling at roughly $200,000 in project valuation — above that, the application typically gets pushed off OTC at intake regardless of scope, because reviewers expect that complexity will exceed the one-hour test. This is a useful early-screening number, not a hard line.
Related: the CBC "Alterations, Structural Repairs or Additions" substantial-alteration valuation threshold — which governs the trigger for whole-building code compliance — was $203,611 in 2025 and re-indexes each January per the Division of the State Architect's annual update. Pull the current figure before relying on it for client work.
Gate 2 — The 45-year historic-resource gate
For any building 45 years old or older, mandatory historic-resource screening applies. The Property Information Map (PIM) flags Category A* properties as City Landmarks or Conservation District properties, and these are absolute disqualifiers for OTC. Work on a Category A* property requires an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness or a Minor Permit to Alter from Planning Preservation — a time-and-materials review process that is decidedly not OTC.
Practical implication: any pre-1981 building should be screened in PIM before designing. The screening costs nothing — it's a public lookup. The cost of skipping it is a designed-and-priced project that gets bounced off OTC at intake and has to detour through Planning Preservation.
Gate 3 — Section 311/312 neighborhood notification
Planning Code §311 (Residential) and §312 (Commercial Neighborhood-adjacent) trigger a mandatory 30-day mailed notice to nearby properties for certain alterations. Triggering §311 or §312 by itself doesn't preclude an OTC building permit, but it adds the 30-day notice window, exposes the project to Discretionary Review, and frequently coincides with other complications that push the project off OTC anyway.
Most common §311/312 triggers for residential and small commercial projects: exterior envelope expansion in RH or RM zoning, vertical additions, rear horizontal additions beyond a modest envelope, and certain ground-floor commercial use changes outside Prop H eligibility. Prop H and the 2021 Small Business Recovery Act eliminated §311/312 for most storefront land-use changes citywide — see the Prop H section below.
Gate 4 — Change of occupancy
Two distinct concepts must be kept apart under SF regulatory practice. "Change of use" is a Planning Code concept — moving between Planning use categories under §102. "Change of occupancy" is a Building Code concept tied to CBC Chapter 3 occupancy groups. They sometimes coincide; they often don't.
A clothing store converting to a café is a Planning change of use without a Building Code change of occupancy — both remain Group M or B/M mixed — so the building permit can be OTC for the minor TI scope. A clothing store converting to a nightclub, by contrast, is both a Planning change of use and a Building Code change of occupancy (M to A-2), and requires In-House review with full code-compliance with the new occupancy. The distinction is high-value for restaurant and small-business operators making lease decisions.
Gate 5 — Slope, seismic hazard, and geotechnically sensitive zones
Projects in Slope and Seismic Hazard Zones, the Edgehill Mountain Slope Protection Area, the Northwest Mount Sutro Slope Protection Area, or otherwise geotechnically sensitive sites are categorically excluded from OTC. The same applies to projects requiring foundation replacement or seismic upgrades when a prior related permit is in review, projects involving below-grade footprint expansion, and remodels triggering mandatory whole-building seismic upgrade under the SF Existing Building Code.
Check PIM for slope and seismic-hazard overlays during pre-design screening. Whole hillside neighborhoods sit in these zones; a project that looks like a routine residential alteration on Twin Peaks or in the Inner Sunset can route straight to In-House because of the zone, regardless of scope.
Gate 6 — Gravity load and structural alterations
Extensive remodels changing gravity-load-carrying members, non-conventional foundations (tiebacks, deep foundations, complex shoring), and remodels triggering mandatory whole-building seismic upgrade per SFEBC are all categorically excluded from OTC. Single-wall structural changes inside an otherwise small remodel can route the entire project to In-House for structural review.
What clears OTC — the scope catalog
Residential work eligible for OTC falls into two categories: OTC without plans and OTC with plans. The dividing line is essentially whether the work changes interior walls higher than approximately 5'-9", expands the building envelope, or alters the structural system.
OTC without plans typically includes:
- In-kind kitchen or bathroom remodels where layout is not changed
- Replacement of wall finishes in R-3 occupancies under SFEBC §503.11.1 with materials matching the existing fire-resistance rating
- In-kind window, door, and exterior siding replacement — now filed only through PermitSF (no longer accepted at the counter since February 13, 2026)
- In-kind re-roof without changing layered weight (more than two shingle layers triggers plans)
- Water heater, like-for-like furnace, AC condenser, and mini-split swaps
- Fixture-for-fixture plumbing
- Bolting existing foundation; adding plywood to crawl spaces (per DBI IS-09 / S-09)
- Repair of minor dry rot
- Deck and stair repair under 50% of the existing element
- Garage door replacement
OTC with plans typically includes:
- Kitchen or bath remodels with layout changes or wall removal
- Residential interior remodels constructing new walls higher than 5'-9"
- New laundry hookups
- New decks less than 20 feet above grade
- Roof decks within buildable areas
- Fences taller than 6 feet in side/rear yards or 3 feet in front yards (subject to Planning setback compliance)
- Voluntary structural strengthening; brace-and-bolt installations
- Removal of underground storage tanks
- Façade work visible from the public way involving finish material changes
- New exterior mechanical equipment
What clears OTC for commercial work
Commercial OTC eligibility follows similar logic, with the one-hour-per-station test as the operative gate. SFFD's published OTC examples include TI demolitions, small architectural TIs that don't affect fire-rated construction, suppression, or alarm systems, and signage. Office TIs limited to furniture, finishes, and minor partition changes within a single tenant suite — not affecting exits, occupant load, fire ratings, or main MEP equipment — are routinely OTC. Retail TIs in spaces with existing retail occupancy classification, where work does not affect storefront accessibility, occupant load, or required exits, are routinely OTC.
Restaurant TIs involving Type-1 hood, grease interceptor, gas line changes, hazardous materials, or public-assembly occupant-load increases require SFFD plan check and typically DPH Environmental Health Branch sign-off, pushing beyond OTC. The threshold matters because it ties to occupancy: per CBC §303.1.2, a room or space used for assembly purposes that is less than 750 square feet in area and accessory to another occupancy is classified as Group B (business) rather than Group A-2 (assembly for food/drink). Once a space exceeds 750 sf in assembly use or has 50+ occupants in dining configuration, A-2 typically attaches.
Departments and counter geography
The Permit Center at 49 South Van Ness consolidates intake for multiple agencies. The most important counters for OTC project routing:
- DBI Plan Review Services (49 SVN, 2nd Floor) — residential and commercial plan check (architectural, structural, MEP); accessibility; soft-story; counter intake; permit issuance.
- SF Planning (Suite 1400, first-come first-served) — zoning verification; §311/312 notification screening; historic resource review; ADU pathway determination; project intake.
- SFFD Plan Check (Suite 560) — fire-rated construction; suppression systems; fire alarm; smoke control; exiting; high-rise; hazardous materials; public assembly; high-pile storage. OTC reviews limited to projects completable in under one hour.
- SF Public Works — sidewalk repair (voluntary), street space, encroachment, driveway/curb cut, side sewer, monitoring well, tank removal, mobile food, tree work.
- SFPUC — water and wastewater capacity charges; fixture count and water use forms; backflow/cross-connection sign-off; stormwater management.
- SFDPH Environmental Health — food facilities, body art, swimming pools, cannabis facilities, rental housing, hazardous materials.
- SFMTA — Special Traffic Permits, curb-cut and driveway coordination, valet zones, color curbs, temporary meter removal, transit clearance.
- Office of Small Business — cross-agency point of contact for small business projects, Prop H navigation, First Year Free enrollment.
QLess virtual queueing replaced physical lines after the Permit Center opened in July 2021. Wait times are managed through the queue algorithm, which caps each plan checker's active queue at two customers to prevent reviewer burnout. Check QLess wait times before traveling. Plan review queues close at 4:30 p.m.; payments accepted until 5:00 p.m.
Forms taxonomy
San Francisco uses a numeric form system. Selecting the correct form determines routing:
- Form 1 / Form 2 — New construction (Type I/II/III/IV steel/concrete/masonry, or Type V wood-frame). Usually filed as Site Permit + Addenda under AB-032.
- Form 3 — Additions, alterations, repairs on existing buildings requiring multi-agency review or neighborhood notification. Full In-House Review.
- Form 4 — Signs requiring DBI and Planning review (structural or illuminated signs). Note that under the 2025 PermitSF signage package, many common business signs no longer require a permit at all.
- Form 5 — Grading, excavation, fill, quarry. Often filed with Form 1/2 or as an early addendum to a Site Permit.
- Form 6 — Demolition. Highly scrutinized due to SF housing preservation rules (Planning Code §317).
- Form 7 — Painted or non-structural signs. Largely superseded for painted business names by the 2025 signage exemptions.
- Form 8 — Small projects eligible for OTC review or projects with no plans. OTC track; hand-carried at the Permit Center or filed online through PermitSF / contractor portals.
Online portals — what's online vs. counter in 2026
Digital permitting in SF has accelerated meaningfully since 2023. Three layers operate today:
- PermitSF (OpenGov), launched February 13, 2026 — initial five permit types plus special events. As of launch, in-kind doors, windows, and siding must be filed online (the counter no longer accepts these). Expansion to additional fire permits, residential remodels, and business signage is scheduled for later in 2026.
- Contractor online permitting (DBI Online Permitting & Tracking System) — licensed contractors can pull electrical, plumbing/mechanical, kitchen and bath remodel, re-roof, boiler, and SolarAPP+ permits online for instant issuance. SolarAPP+ has been live since January 2023 in compliance with SB 379.
- Bluebeam Studio Electronic Plan Review for In-House projects — since January 1, 2024 DBI has conducted 100% EPR. All sister agencies access shared sessions simultaneously, allowing parallel inter-agency markup rather than sequential routing.
Performance data — what to actually expect
Per the City Controller's FY25 Annual Performance Results report:
- OTC accounts for more than 90% of permits handled by DBI
- 63% of OTC permits issued within 2 business days (above the 60% internal target)
- 18% of OTC no-plans permits issued instantly online — a steady increase over prior years
- Inspections conducted within 2 business days of request: 93–94%
- AB 1114 first-review targets met: 94%
- Initial completeness checks within 15 days: approximately 100%
- SFFD wait times dropped by approximately 56% under PermitSF — average waits in 2025 around 14 minutes
What the official data does not publish (per the 2023 Civil Grand Jury report): clean annual OTC approval-versus-denial counts, department-by-department OTC denial rate, average recheck cycles per OTC application, and disaggregated OTC application volumes by project type. Service-time metrics are the strongest published data; "approved on first pass" cannot be cleanly derived from them.
The 2024–2026 reform landscape (brief)
An unusual amount of SF permitting policy changed in 2024–2026. The most important items for an architect to know:
- Housing Stimulus and Fee Reform Plan (September 2023) — inclusionary rate cuts, 33% temporary impact-fee reduction through November 1, 2026, 2% annual escalation cap on impact fees, and fee deferrals.
- 100 Small Business Planning Reforms (Mayor Breed, December 2023) — over 100 amendments easing small-business restrictions citywide, expanded Flexible Retail, extended Prop H benefits eastward.
- AB 1114, AB 2234, AB 281 (effective January 1, 2024) — mandatory shot clocks for post-entitlement permits. AB 1114 specifically extends to SF's historically discretionary building permits and removes appeal exposure for qualifying housing projects.
- SB 423 (San Francisco subject as of June 28, 2024) — first-in-state mandatory ministerial coverage for code-complying mixed-income projects, with a six-month approval framework.
- October 2025 ADU package — SB 543 (JADU parity, school-fee exemption, livable-space clarification), AB 462 (Coastal Zone ADU CDP shot clocks, urgency October 2025), AB 1154 (JADU owner-occupancy narrowed), 2025 SB 9 (HCD-noncompliance voidance).
- PermitSF Executive Directive (Mayor Lurie, February 2025) — the umbrella under which the OpenGov portal launched, sister-agency wait-time reductions, and the Permit Performance Dashboard were delivered.
- Second Legislative Package / "dumb rules" (late 2025) — aligning local ADU controls to state law, eliminating fees for many common business signs, reducing development fees for projects above $100M, easing temporary pop-up retail (now up to three years instead of 60 days), allowing basement units in NC corridors without conditional use hearings.
- January 1, 2026 — adoption of 2025 California Codes and 2025 SF amendments with no grace period; Planning Department application fees re-based to estimated construction cost.
The architect's perspective — design decisions that move you between tracks
The practical lesson from working through SF permitting across many projects: which review track your project lands on is rarely accidental. It's the cumulative result of design choices made before the GC ever bids. Six decisions that most often determine the track:
- 1. Keep scope tight enough to clear the one-hour-per-station test at every required department. Add scope deliberately; trim it deliberately.
- 2. Avoid change of occupancy if a Planning change of use alone gets you to the program you want. Restaurant operators especially should consider lease spaces that already have A-2 occupancy classification.
- 3. Screen historic status in PIM before designing. Pre-1981 buildings need the screening; A* properties cannot use OTC for any work.
- 4. Don't propose envelope expansion in RH or RM zoning unless the §311/312 notification window and Discretionary Review exposure are acceptable to your timeline.
- 5. Stay below the practical $200,000 valuation ceiling where possible. Above it, plan on routing to Enhanced In-House or full In-House regardless of scope.
- 6. Mark the correct checkbox on Form 3/8 at intake. Form 8 = OTC; Form 3 = In-House. Confusion at this step alone triggers re-routing.
When OTC fails — what comes next
Projects that don't clear OTC route to Enhanced In-House Review (Pre-Plan Check), to full In-House Review, or — for the largest projects — to Site Permit + Addenda. Each track has its own intake form, shot clock, and fee structure. Enhanced In-House Review categories should be confirmed with DBI Plan Review Services before assuming category eligibility. Full In-House Review uses Bluebeam Studio EPR for inter-agency parallel review, which has compressed timelines materially since 2024. Site Permit + Addenda remains the canonical path for ground-up new construction and major adaptive reuse.
For housing projects specifically, the SB 423 ministerial track and the AB 1114 / AB 2234 post-entitlement shot clocks provide important legal protections that override SF's historic treatment of building permits as discretionary. SF Planning restructured its sequence in January 2024 so that all building permit applications requiring Planning review must first receive a Planning Department Approval Letter before being formally submitted to DBI — a procedural shift that decouples land-use entitlement from life-safety code compliance.
Common rejection catalysts
The most common failure modes for OTC applications aren't formal denials — they're procedural rejections that bounce the application out of the OTC track. Understanding these in advance lets the architect avoid them:
- Documentation failure — missing Title 24 calculations, omitted structural observation programs, missing Maher Ordinance soil affidavit, missing Green Building forms, missing SFPUC Fixture Count Form.
- Drafting inconsistency — floor plans lacking dimensional labels, failure to use 1/4" scale minimum, failure to cloud revisions or use numbered delta symbols on rechecks.
- Form error — outdated Form 3/8 version, missing applicant signatures, mismatch between project address and Assessor block/lot, wrong Form 8 vs. Form 3 checkbox.
- Zoning / notification conflict — proposing envelope expansion that triggers §311/312 in RH or RM zoning.
- Historic resource trigger — PIM Category A* designation, or 45-year building requiring historic screening.
- Wrong legal filer — tenant filing without owner authorization; expired contractor license; missing Workers' Compensation Certification.
- Triggered parallel agency requirement — sidewalk/street space, meter, Muni clearance, DPH, Fire, or SFPUC requirement that was not coordinated.
When a plan checker issues comments, the applicant must conduct the recheck with the same plan checker who issued the comments — a forum-shopping prevention measure. The right strategy when a comment looks unreasonable is escalation through DBI leadership, not re-submittal to a different plan checker.
Where this guide goes next
This is the framework. Specific project-type deep dives — SF restaurant tenant improvements and the OTC qualification test; SF ADUs under the State and Local programs; the change-of-use-vs-change-of-occupancy distinction in detail; Prop H and the Small Business Recovery Act; the PermitSF portal explainer — are addressed in separate posts that link back here. If you're working on a specific project type in SF, those deep dives are the right next read.