Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu New Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves allowing ADUs in new construction, with ministerial review for code‑compliant units
Summary
The commission voted 5–1 to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to be proposed in new single‑ and multi‑family construction and to make code‑compliant ADUs ministerial in single‑family homes; staff removed a recommended reduction in open‑space rules from the passed motion.
On March 7 the Planning Commission voted to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in new construction across applicable residential zoning categories and to direct that code‑compliant ADUs in single‑family homes be treated as ministerial permits (no discretionary Planning Commission review). The motion approved staff‑recommended modifications but excluded a staff proposal to reduce the open‑space requirement for alterations to existing single‑family houses.
Supervisor Safai introduced the proposal as an alignment of local code with recent state ADU laws and as a tool to encourage more small‑scale infill housing. Veronica Flores of the Planning Department described two ADU tracks in current practice: the local waiver program (administrative exceptions under 207(c)(4)) and the state no‑waiver program (207(c)(6)), and said the ordinance extends both tracks to new construction. Under the approved motion, ADUs proposed in new single‑family homes will be ministerial if fully code‑compliant; appeals for such ministerial decisions will be processed to the Board of Appeals on an expedited schedule to remain consistent with state timelines.
Staff asked the commission to consider a 1,200 square‑foot cap on ADU size for alterations to existing single‑family homes (not for new construction) and proposed reducing usable open space requirements in a few RH1 districts; commissioners removed the open‑space reduction from the approved motion after discussion about how open‑space waivers are used by the city to secure rent‑control conditions on some units. Planning staff and housing advocates (California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund) testified in support of the ordinance as a city move toward state compliance and a way to expand rent‑controlled infill. The Historic Preservation Commission indicated conditional concurrence with staff recommendations, and planning staff will return with final objective architectural standards where projects involve Article 10/11 historic properties.
What happens next: The commission’s recommendation advances to the Board of Supervisors for ordinance adoption and the Planning Department will publish guidance to implement ministerial ADU review and the revised appeal path.
