Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor’s office outlines ordinance to stop ADU projects from removing tenant services
Summary
An ordinance introduced by Supervisor Mandelman's office would require landowners to declare to the rent board that accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projects will not remove or reduce tenant 'housing services' (parking, laundry, storage, common areas) and would make wrongful severance of those services enforceable like wrongful evictions.
The Building Inspection Commission on July 21 heard a presentation from Supervisor Mandelman’s office outlining proposed changes to city law intended to prevent accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projects in rent‑controlled multifamily buildings from removing or reducing tenant housing services without just cause.
Jacob Bentliff, representing Supervisor Mandelman, described a multi‑part legislative approach: align wrongful severance of a housing service with wrongful eviction remedies (including treble damages and attorneys’ fees), explicitly state that an ADU permit alone does not constitute just cause to remove a housing service, add tenant notification requirements and require a declaration to the Rent Board before planning may accept an ADU application in an occupied multifamily building. The declaration would require owners to state whether an ADU would reduce or eliminate housing services and how they would be replaced; planning would not accept an application without a rent‑board determination.
Bentliff said the intent is to strengthen enforcement of existing rent‑board protections (which already prohibit removal of housing services without just cause) and to provide transparency so tenants do not need to be the sole parties to assert a severance case. “Existing law already protects existing housing services,” Bentliff said, adding the ordinance is intended to make that protection easier to apply by creating a predictable process.
Public commenters were split. Tenant advocates (Housing Action Coalition) supported the proposal as a tool to protect long‑term rent‑controlled tenants, while representatives of the property industry (San Francisco Apartment Association) warned the measure could sharply reduce ADU production and urged alternatives such as improved enforcement of existing law or monetary compensation schedules similar to approaches in Los Angeles. Commissioners asked follow‑up questions about exceptions — for example, ADUs created as part of mandated seismic upgrades — and whether the rent board’s existing processes would be sufficient to adjudicate disputes. Bentliff said the rent board would adjudicate whether a service is a protected housing service and the legislative proposal would require planning to wait for the rent‑board declaration before accepting an ADU application.
Bentliff said the ordinance does not apply to ADUs in new construction; it applies only where existing tenants claim a housing service is at risk. Planning commission review is scheduled in September, and proponents and staff said they expect further analysis and possible modifications through that process.
