Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outline expanded ADU rules and faster review under proposed ordinance
Summary
Planning Department staff briefed the Board of Appeals on San Francisco’s two-track ADU program and proposed ordinance amendments that would allow ADUs in new construction, make single‑family ADUs ministerial, and shorten the Board’s appeal window for ministerial ADU approvals to 10–30 days.
Marcel Boudreaux, manager of the Planning Department team that implements accessory dwelling unit (ADU) permits, told the Board of Appeals on Jan. 30 that the city currently operates two ADU tracks: a long‑standing waiver program that grants administrative exceptions and a no‑waiver program, which allows single‑family homes to add one ADU if the project complies with code. Boudreaux said the department’s work since 2017 has been shaped by state law changes and local streamlining.
The proposed ordinance staff discussed would align local rules with state amendments and expand opportunities to add ADUs, including permitting ADUs in newly constructed buildings. Veronica Flores, Planning Department staff, said the draft ordinance would make all no‑waiver ADU approvals ministerial and require appeals on those ministerial projects to be heard by the Board of Appeals within 10–30 days of filing; the ordinance would also remove the Board’s ability to entertain motions for rehearing on those appeals.
Natalia Kwiatkowski described process improvements implemented after the Mayor’s executive directive, including parallel, concurrent review by multiple city agencies and a combined plan‑check letter, updated public handouts, optional pre‑application meetings, and an ADU handbook with prototypes. Scott Sanchez told the board that, as of January 2019, Planning had recorded 1,008 screening forms, 236 permits issued and a total of 648 ADUs created under the program to date, and that DBI maintains more detailed operational reports.
Commissioners asked whether the Ellis Act would bar ADU additions, whether fire and DBI backlogs had been resolved, and how light‑and‑air exposure rules were adjusted for ADUs. Boudreaux and Sanchez said recent local equivalencies (including an egress single‑exit equivalency) and parallel processing between agencies have reduced previous delays; they said Ellis Act evictions would not by themselves prohibit adding an ADU under the proposed rules. Sanchez explained that the planning code’s reduced exposure requirements for ADUs were adopted through public hearings and legislative review and that some waivers remain discretionary.
The department offered to provide follow‑up numbers from DBI and pledged to take board feedback into the planning‑commission review scheduled Feb. 14. The board had no action on the ordinance itself; the briefing was informational.
