Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs code change to allow limited expansion of legally existing nonconforming housing
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended approval on Sept. 19 of amendments to Section 181 of the Planning Code to allow alterations of legally existing nonconforming units within a building’s envelope as of Jan. 1, 2013; the recommendation passed 6‑1 with Commissioner Antonini opposed.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted on Sept. 19 to recommend approval of an ordinance that would let legally existing nonconforming dwelling units be altered or expanded so long as changes do not enlarge the building envelope beyond how it existed on Jan. 1, 2013.
Jeremy Pollack, representing the supervisor’s office that introduced the ordinance, said the amendment is aimed at treating legally permitted nonconforming units consistently and offering owners limited flexibility to improve units while restricting expansion that could increase nonconformity. Pollack said the sponsor was working with the City Attorney on language that would bar expansions in buildings where a no‑fault eviction occurred within the past 10 years.
Planning staff supported the revision as amended to limit expansions to the existing envelope and reduce the risk that renovations would lead to larger, less affordable units. Sophie Hayward of the Planning Department told commissioners the change applies to legally constructed nonconforming units (those built with permits but located in a zone permitting fewer units) and may affect tens of thousands of units citywide; staff estimated between 49,000 and 52,000 legally permitted nonconforming units.
Commissioner discussion centered on the balance between improving living conditions for existing units and the risk of encouraging increased unit size or serial permitting to avoid affordability protections. Commissioner Antonini opposed the recommendation, citing concerns that expansions could compound small‑unit density and reduce family‑sized housing. The motion to recommend approval passed 6‑1.
