Local code · San Francisco

San Francisco — Development Procedures & Fees

The San Francisco Development Procedures & Fees, explained in plain English with the controlling citations.

Last reviewed: July 6, 2026

Overview

The San Francisco Administrative Code sets citywide procedures that sit alongside the Planning and Building Codes, governing how large projects are negotiated, reviewed, and charged for certain processing costs. This page focuses on what the Administrative Code itself establishes about development agreements, environmental review procedures, lien enforcement for unpaid obligations, and a handful of development-related administrative fees in San Francisco. For zoning rules and impact fee schedules, see the San Francisco Planning Code and the San Francisco zoning & planning overview.

The Administrative Code’s development “backbone” is simple: negotiate and adopt a Development Agreement transparently, review compliance annually, and use the City’s lien procedures if required obligations go unpaid (§ 56, § 31, § 10.230 et seq.).

What the Administrative Code covers (at a glance)

Development Agreements: how to apply, notice and hearing rules, Board/Commission roles, annual compliance review, amendment/termination paths, and a cost‑recovery fee paid by the sponsor to fund the City’s negotiation work (§ 56.1–§ 56.20)
City CEQA procedures: San Francisco’s local rules for administering CEQA, establishing that Chapter 31 governs local implementation and prevails over other ordinances in case of inconsistency (§ 31.01–§ 31.03)
City lien procedure: standard steps the City uses to place and record a lien when authorized by law for unpaid fees/charges related to development (§ 10.230–§ 10.237)
Selected development-related admin fees and appeals: hearing fees for Building Inspection Commission appeals (§ 77.10), and filing/processing fees for Residential Hotel conversion administration (§ 41.11)

For permits, inspections, and construction standards, see San Francisco Permits & Inspections and the California Building Standards Code.

Development Agreements (Administrative Code Chapter 56)

The Administrative Code creates a full framework for negotiated Development Agreements (DAs), used on large or complex projects to lock in regulations and secure public benefits.

Key steps and standards:

Application and early notice. The Planning Director sets the application form; applicants must list anticipated public benefits exceeding what current codes require. If complete, the Director accepts the filing, publishes the acceptance, makes it public, and schedules a Planning Commission hearing within 30 days (§ 56.4) .
City Attorney review. Any proposed agreement or amendment must be approved as to form by the City Attorney before action by the Director, Commission, or Board (§ 56.5) .
Public transparency during negotiations. At least 20 days before the first hearing, the Director must publish a Development Agreement Negotiation Report (attendance, topics, any agreed terms) and make related correspondence and documents available; updates are required through final action (§ 56.10) .
Collateral agreements. Parties seeking related commitments must file collateral agreements with the Director; the Director reports whether terms should be incorporated into the DA before initial hearing and during annual reviews (§ 56.11) .
Notice and hearing rules. Notice content and distribution are prescribed; Commission hearings follow Planning Code hearing procedures. A Commission recommendation (approve/modify/disapprove) goes to the Board (§ 56.8–§ 56.9, § 56.13) .
Board action. The Board holds a public hearing and adopts the DA by ordinance if it finds consistency with the General Plan and Planning Code § 101.1 priorities; certain Board-proposed material modifications cycle back to the Commission (§ 56.14) .
Recordation. Within 10 days of execution (or amendment/termination), the Clerk must record the agreement or notice of action with the County Recorder (§ 56.16) .
Annual compliance review. Each January, the Director initiates review; if the Commission finds good‑faith compliance, the City issues a recordable certificate of compliance. If not, the Commission may extend time for good cause or initiate modification/termination (§ 56.17–§ 56.18) .
Litigation deadlines. Challenges to final Board decisions under Chapter 56 must be filed within 90 days (§ 56.19) .

Cost recovery (DA “processing fee”):

The Administrative Code requires a City cost estimate and a fee resolution to fund staff/consultant work needed to prepare, adopt, and amend a DA (e.g., Planning, Public Works, Real Estate, City Attorney). The Board may allow payment in one lump sum or four installments; up to 50% may be prepaid to a dedicated Development Agreement Fund to start work (§ 56.20(a)–(d)) .
The Board may waive all or part of the DA processing fee for affordable housing developments if necessary to achieve the affordable project; the fee framework does not replace other fee obligations. Certain rental projects with on‑site affordable housing may be exempt from these Chapter 56 hearing/fee requirements (§ 56.20(e)–(g)) .

Interfaces you should know:

Projects with DAs remain subject to environmental review under Chapter 31 and any applicable Planning Code conditions of approval.
When authorized by other codes, unpaid development‑related obligations can be enforced through the Administrative Code’s lien procedure (see below), which the Building Code and Planning Code expressly cross‑reference in fee enforcement contexts (§ 107A.13.15; § 408) .
Planning Code § 403 ties the timing of fee payments to Building Code rules and makes DA projects eligible for the City’s fee deferral program unless the DA says otherwise (§ 403) . For permits and construction, see San Francisco Permits & Inspections and Review Timelines.

City CEQA Procedures (Administrative Code Chapter 31)

San Francisco’s CEQA administration lives in the Administrative Code:

Chapter 31 is adopted under CEQA and the State Guidelines; it adapts CEQA for City use and prevails over other local ordinances where inconsistent in administering CEQA (§ 31.01–§ 31.03) .
Objectives emphasize early, focused review, public disclosure, and feasible mitigation or alternatives where significant impacts are identified (§ 31.02) .

For project‑specific entitlements subject to CEQA and conditional approvals, see San Francisco Conditional Use.

City Lien Procedure for Unpaid Development-Related Obligations (Administrative Code Article XX, Chapter 10)

Where a City ordinance authorizes use of the standard City lien procedure, Article XX provides the steps:

Applicability. The Article XX procedure applies unless another valid procedure governs; if an alternative is struck down, Article XX applies (§ 10.230) .
Required notices and timing. The department first mails a request for payment; if unpaid after 30 days, it sends a certified “notice of proposed lien” stating the amount due and that after 45 days the account may become a delinquent lien subject to a Board hearing (§ 10.230A) .
Board hearing and recordation. The department reports to the Board, notice of hearing is given, and if confirmed the lien is created and recorded; the Article specifies Controller/Tax Collector handling and release fees (§ 10.231–§ 10.237) .

Codes often invoke Article XX for development‑related charges. For example, Building Code fee‑enforcement cites Article XX when impact fees or in‑lieu obligations remain unpaid before certificate of occupancy (§ 107A.13.15) , and the Planning Code does likewise for certain impact fees (§ 408) .

Other Administrative Code items touching development

Building Inspection Commission appeals. Appeals to the Commission (distinct from the Board of Appeals) carry hearing fees “as set forth in Table 1K” of the Building Code; notices and rules for such appeals are prescribed (§ 77.9–§ 77.10) .
Residential Hotel Conversion administration. DBI collects filing and processing fees to administer eligibility, investigations, and hearings under the Residential Hotel Unit conversion rules (§ 41.11) .

For overlays and fee districts created by the Planning Code (e.g., Eastern Neighborhoods, Central SoMa), refer to San Francisco Special Use Districts and the Article 4 impact fee programs in the Planning Code.

Key Administrative Code procedures & fees — quick reference

Topic	What it does	Timing/trigger	Who decides	Fees/Payments	Code Reference
Development Agreement application & initial notice	Director accepts a complete DA application, publishes notice, schedules Commission hearing within 30 days	Upon complete application	Planning Director; Planning Commission	No impact fee set here; a separate DA processing fee is established later	§ 56.4
Negotiation transparency	Publishes negotiation report and makes documents available ≥20 days before first hearing; updates through approval	Before first and subsequent hearings	Planning Director	None (administrative transparency)	§ 56.10
Commission hearing & recommendation	Conducts noticed public hearing; recommends approve/modify/disapprove	After notice	Planning Commission	None	§ 56.9, § 56.13
Board hearing & adoption by ordinance	Holds hearing; may adopt the DA ordinance (with plan consistency) and address material modifications	After Commission action	Board of Supervisors	None	§ 56.14
Recordation	Records executed DA or amendment/termination within 10 days	Post‑adoption	Clerk of the Board	Recording handled by Clerk	§ 56.16
Annual compliance review	Director initiates each January; Commission issues certificate of compliance or initiates modification/termination	Annually	Director; Commission; possible Board review	None	§ 56.17–§ 56.18
DA cost‑recovery fee	City prepares cost estimate and Board resolution sets fee; may be prepaid up to 50% into DA Fund; installments allowed; waiver possible for affordable housing	Upon application and as resolved	Planning Director, Commission (recommendation), Board (resolution)	Sponsor‑paid processing fee; potential waiver for qualifying affordable housing	§ 56.20(a)–(g)
City CEQA procedures	Establishes local CEQA rules and precedence over inconsistent ordinances	With any CEQA‑subject action	Lead agencies per CEQA	N/A (CEQA filing fees live outside Chapter 31)	§ 31.01–§ 31.03
City lien procedure	Standardizes request for payment, proposed lien notice (30/45 days), Board hearing, lien recordation	When law authorizes lien use	Department; Board of Supervisors	Lien release recording fee; interest/penalties per Article XX	§ 10.230–§ 10.237
BIC appeal hearing fee	Sets hearing fee rules and hardship exemption for Building Inspection Commission appeals	When filing an appeal	Building Inspection Commission	Fee per Building Code Table 1K	§ 77.10
Residential Hotel conversion admin fees	DBI collects filing and investigation/report fees; indigency waiver allowed	With Chapter 41 proceedings	DBI; Hearing Officer	Fees per Building Code table; waiver possible	§ 41.11(a)–(b)

Checklist

Decide if a Development Agreement is warranted and feasible for your project scale/benefits; prepare the Administrative Code–required application listing anticipated public benefits beyond existing code requirements (§ 56.4) .
Build a DA processing budget with the City; expect a Board‑approved cost‑recovery fee and consider prepaying up to 50% into the DA Fund to start work (§ 56.20) .
Plan for public transparency: track negotiation reports and document availability deadlines before hearings (§ 56.10) .
Prepare for CEQA under Chapter 31; align project milestones accordingly (§ 31.01–§ 31.03) .
Anticipate annual DA compliance each January; organize data to demonstrate good‑faith performance (§ 56.17) .
If applicable, disclose and coordinate any collateral agreements that could be folded into the DA (§ 56.11) .
Ensure any development‑related charges are paid on time to avoid Article XX lien proceedings (§ 10.230A) and confirm final fee timing via the San Francisco Planning Code and Review Timelines (§ 403; § 107A.13.3) .
If your project touches Residential Hotel units, budget for Chapter 41 administrative fees and hearing processes (§ 41.11) .
For DBI‑related appeals, factor Building Inspection Commission hearing fees (§ 77.10) and filing norms (§ 77.9) into your schedule (§ 77.9–§ 77.10) .

Risks & Ambiguities

Issue	Why it matters	What to verify
DA fee amount and schedule	The Chapter 56 fee is custom to the project’s scope and staff effort	Confirm the Director’s cost estimate and the Board’s fee resolution details (§ 56.20)
Material vs. minor DA modifications	Dictates whether notice and full hearings are required	Whether a proposed change is a “material modification” per DA terms and § 56.3/§ 56.15; verify with the jurisdiction (§ 56.15)
Annual compliance findings	Noncompliance can lead to modification or termination	Evidence needed for “good‑faith compliance” at the § 56.17 review; potential Board review timelines (§ 56.17–§ 56.18)
Lien timing and interest	Late payments may accrue interest/penalties and be liened	Department notices and Board hearing steps under Article XX; interest/release fee rules (§ 10.230A–§ 10.237)
Overlap with Planning/Building Codes	Payment timing and deferrals are set outside Chapter 56	Fee timing/deferral in Planning Code § 403 and Building Code § 107A.13.3/§ 107A.13.3.1; check current program eligibility (§ 403; § 107A.13)
Residential Hotel status	Chapter 41 fees/steps apply only if hotel units are implicated	Whether the building is a “residential hotel” and applicable Chapter 41 requirements (§ 41.11); verify with the jurisdiction

Plain-English Summary

San Francisco’s Administrative Code explains how the City negotiates and adopts Development Agreements, how it runs local CEQA procedures, and how it can record a lien if authorized development-related payments go unpaid. If you pursue a Development Agreement, you’ll pay a City cost‑recovery fee (set by the Board) to fund staff and legal work, and you’ll face an annual compliance check; if you don’t keep up with required payments, the City can use its lien process. Most impact fee amounts and zoning rules live in the Planning and Building Codes, which your team should consult early.

Source References

Administrative Code Chapter 56 (Development Agreements): § 56.1–§ 56.5, § 56.8–§ 56.20 (application, notice, hearing, transparency, collateral agreements, Commission/Board action, recordation, periodic review, modification/termination, limitations, and DA processing fee)
Administrative Code Chapter 31 (City CEQA Procedures): § 31.01–§ 31.03
Administrative Code Article XX, Chapter 10 (Lien Procedure): § 10.230–§ 10.237
Administrative Code Chapter 77 (Building Inspection Commission appeals fees): § 77.9–§ 77.10
Administrative Code Chapter 41 (Residential Hotel conversion administration fees): § 41.11
Cross-references in Planning and Building Codes related to timing/deferral and lien usage: Planning Code § 403 and § 408; Building Code § 107A.13.3, § 107A.13.15

Sources

Retrieved passages

San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 10.100-49) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 107A.13.) High relevance
CBC § 107A.13.1 (Chapter 56) High relevance
CBC § 433.2 (Section 433.2) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 107A.13.14.) High relevance
CBC § 402 (Section 402) High relevance
CBC § 422.1 (Section 422.1) High relevance
CBC § 402 (Section 402) High relevance
CBC § 107A.13.3 (Chapter 36) High relevance
CBC § 10.237 (Article XX) High relevance
CBC § 107A.13.3 (Chapter 36) High relevance
CBC § 107A.13.3 (Article 4) High relevance
CBC § 406 (Section 406) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (CHAPTER 55) High relevance
CBC § 411.9 (Article to) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 56.20) High relevance
CBC § 107A (section deemed) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 411.9) Medium relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 56.4) Medium relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Chapter shall) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 56.4) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 56.18.) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 56.8) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Article 4) High relevance
San Francisco Zoning Code (Section 306.3) High relevance

Cited sections

Administrative Code Chapter 56 (Development Agreements): § 56.1–§ 56.5, § 56.8–§ 56.20 (application, notice, hearing, transparency, collateral agreements, Commission/Board action, recordation, periodic review, modification/termination, limitations, and DA processing fee) (Chapter 56)
Administrative Code Chapter 31 (City CEQA Procedures): § 31.01–§ 31.03 (Chapter 31)
Administrative Code Article XX, Chapter 10 (Lien Procedure): § 10.230–§ 10.237 (Article XX)
Administrative Code Chapter 77 (Building Inspection Commission appeals fees): § 77.9–§ 77.10 (Chapter 77)
Administrative Code Chapter 41 (Residential Hotel conversion administration fees): § 41.11 (Chapter 41)
Cross-references in Planning and Building Codes related to timing/deferral and lien usage: Planning Code § 403 and § 408; Building Code § 107A.13.3, § 107A.13.15 (§ 403)
SF Admin Code.md
SF Building Inspection Commissions Code.md
SF Planning Code.md

Frequently asked questions

How do Development Agreements work in San Francisco?

A Development Agreement is negotiated under the Administrative Code, with an application, public notice, a Planning Commission hearing and recommendation, and final adoption by the Board via ordinance. The agreement is recorded and reviewed annually for good‑faith compliance (§ 56.4, § 56.13–§ 56.17) .

What fees does the Administrative Code require for Development Agreements?

Chapter 56 requires a project‑specific, cost‑recovery fee to fund City staff/consultant time to prepare, adopt, and amend the agreement. The Board approves the amount by resolution; payment may be in lump sum or installments, and up to 50% can be prepaid into a Development Agreement Fund (§ 56.20(a)–(d)) .

Can the City waive the Development Agreement processing fee for affordable housing?

Yes. The Board may waive all or part of the Chapter 56 DA processing fee for affordable housing developments if it finds the waiver is necessary to achieve the project (§ 56.20(e)) .

How often will my Development Agreement be reviewed and what happens if I fall behind?

The Director initiates an annual compliance review each January. If the Commission finds noncompliance, it may extend time for good cause or recommend modification or termination to the Board (§ 56.17–§ 56.18) .

Can projects under a Development Agreement defer impact fee payments?

The Administrative Code doesn’t set fee amounts, but the Planning Code ties payment timing to Building Code rules and states that projects with Development Agreements are eligible for the City’s fee deferral program unless the agreement says otherwise (Planning Code § 403, cross‑referencing Building Code § 107A.13.3.1). Confirm terms in your DA (§ 403) .

What is the City’s process to lien a property for unpaid development-related charges?

When an ordinance authorizes it, Article XX requires a written payment request; if unpaid after 30 days, a certified “proposed lien” notice; then a Board hearing. If confirmed, the lien is created and recorded, with interest and a release recording fee specified (§ 10.230–§ 10.237) .

Where do appeals and fees for DBI-related development decisions live?

Appeals to the Building Inspection Commission carry hearing fees set by the Building Code, and the Administrative Code prescribes required appeal notices and the ability to grant fee waivers for hardship (§ 77.9–§ 77.10) .

Do Residential Hotel conversions pay administrative fees under the Administrative Code?

Yes. Chapter 41 requires filing and investigation/report fees paid to DBI for eligibility and hearing administration, with an indigency waiver option (§ 41.11) .

How does San Francisco implement CEQA requirements?

Chapter 31 adapts CEQA for local use, sets policies and objectives, and provides that Chapter 31 governs over other local ordinances where inconsistent in administering CEQA (§ 31.01–§ 31.03) .

Do Development Agreements control impact fees while they are in effect?

Often, yes—DA terms may govern applicable impact fees for the covered site while the agreement is in effect; once a DA expires, current Planning Code impact fees apply. Verify in the DA text and applicable SUD provisions that state fees are determined “in accordance with the Development Agreement” while it remains effective (examples in Planning Code SUDs) .

Ask about any San Francisco property

Get a cited, plain-English answer on San Francisco zoning, setbacks, FAR, ADUs and permits — for any address.

Start Free Trial