BIC urges Board to remove local 60‑day ADU timeline from ordinance, backs guidance bulletin

The Building Inspection Commission on March 20 recommended that the Board of Supervisors remove the ordinance’s newly proposed 60‑day local accessory dwelling unit (ADU) review timeline from Board file 240,110, saying the provision would be redundant or confusing in light of state law.

Assistant Director Christine Gasparek and Nate Horrell, an aide to Board President Peskin, told commissioners the ordinance was originally drafted to align local review timelines with state and hybrid ADU pathways. Horrell said the sponsor’s intent was to make the local pathway more attractive, but he acknowledged that AB 1114 already establishes a stricter statewide timeline. “We agree that it might be simpler to just stick with that timeline,” Horrell said, adding that removing redundant local timeline language was under consideration.

Veronica Flores of the Planning Department recommended removing the new timeline language from the building code because it would extend or complicate current practice. “It is confusing to have this additional language within the building code,” Flores said, and she told commissioners Planning Commission will hear the item on April 25.

Deputy City Attorney Rob Caplat advised that the state statute sets maximum timelines for the state pathway and that maintaining a separate, slower local timeline could be misleading: “I think the suggestion is stop referencing specific timelines since we have a stricter timeline for everything regarding housing projects.”

Following discussion about business days versus calendar days and how multiple departments coordinate tolling, Commissioner Summer moved to recommend that the ordinance move forward with the yellow‑highlighted 60‑day local ADU timeline removed. The motion carried unanimously on roll call.

Separately, the Code Advisory Committee had recommended issuing an administrative bulletin to clarify how review days are counted across state and local programs. Commissioner Williams proposed directing the Department of Building Inspection to begin preparing that administrative bulletin to provide guidance to applicants and other departments; commissioners recorded that proposal as a recommendation to staff.

What happens next: the commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the legislative record on file 240,110. Planning staff said the green language in the ordinance (state‑required building‑code changes) is proceeding through the legislative process and is expected to take effect soon; the commission’s recommendation only affects the newly proposed local timeline language.