Planning Commission delays ADU amendments debate, urges split of compliance fix and policy ideas

The San Francisco Planning Commission on April 13 delayed further action on a package of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) code changes while fault lines over process and draft language remained unresolved.

Supervisor David Peskin, sponsor of a narrowly targeted ordinance to bring the city—s ADU rules into compliance with recent state law changes, told the Commission the compliance change should move forward quickly and that other policy ideas being floated should not be grafted on without formal code language. He said, "You don't have any proposed language," urging that the Board file be split so the compliance ordinance can proceed.

Commissioners debated whether the Commission may or should discuss the broader policy concepts in the absence of city-attorney-drafted code language. Deputy City Attorney Kristen Jensen advised the panel that it was not unlawful to discuss amendments without final language and that the City Attorney's Office commonly drafts language after hearings. She told the Commission: "It is the position of the City Attorney's Office that you do not have to have written language in front of you today."

Planning staff and supervisors representing other districts had proposed six illustrative amendments — clarifying temporary-eviction protections tied to ADU eligibility, removing a cap on ADUs created in buildings undergoing seismic retrofit, allowing limited conversions of non-street-facing vacant commercial space in Neighborhood Commercial Districts, permitting certain basement/basement-adjacent 'rooms down' conversions within size limits, encouraging expedited review timelines where state law requires ministerial approval, and standardizing neighborhood notification rules. Staff generally supported the policy goals but recommended specific limits (for example a 25% size threshold on certain conversions) and additional Zoning Administrator findings when more flexibility is requested.

Community groups and housing advocates urged the Commission to use the compliance opportunity to make the ADU program more effective. Supporters asked the Commission to lift the unit cap on seismic-retrofit ADUs and to minimize discretionary review for projects that state law requires be ministerial.

After extended deliberation and with an eye to both legal certainty and public notice requirements, the Commission voted to continue the ADU item to May 4 and asked supervisors and the City Attorney's Office to provide clearly drafted language (or split the file) so that the Commission could vote on carefully framed code text rather than on conceptual proposals. The continuance was approved with no recorded no votes.

The Commission directed staff to prepare appropriate resolutions reflecting the Commission's recommended tweaks and to return with the specific code language or a duplicated board file for the separate package of policy amendments.