Planning Commission backs citywide ‘amended certificate’ route for secondary units with affordability caveat

The San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve a building-code amendment to create an “amended certificate of occupancy” permitting property owners to legalize secondary units without automatically triggering retrofit requirements for the entire building.

Planning staff described the change as a way to bring tens of thousands of existing accessory or “in-law” units into compliance where those units already meet current codes, and to track the date each unit was legalized without forcing whole-building upgrades in cases where the new unit would not change the building’s occupancy class. Anne Marie Rogers of the Planning Department said the amendment would encourage legalization while preserving safety standards: "If the new unit complies with all existing code, we would issue an amended certificate," she said.

Supporters from housing and smart-growth groups said the move can expand housing supply and improve safety by encouraging legalization. Tim Cohen of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition called it a “smart-growth solution” that could help thousands of units come into the regulatory fold. Rick Galbraith, a legislative aide to Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, said the proposal was designed so owners could “come out of the closet” and bring units up to habitable standards while preserving the original occupancy date for rent‑control and other purposes.

Opponents and some commissioners raised affordability and notice concerns. Community advocates and Commissioner Antonini warned that legalizing units without clear affordability safeguards could yield more market-rate supply rather than new low-cost homes. Calvin Welch of the Council of Community Housing Organizations asked that the Board of Supervisors consider affordability conditions before implementing the citywide expansion. The commission also pressed staff to ensure fee collection and to seek city‑attorney guidance on rent‑control implications; staff said impact and administrative fees would still be collected.

Outcome and next steps: The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendment as revised by staff and to urge the Board of Supervisors to study affordability safeguards and clarify rent‑control implications. The commission’s motion captured the department’s technical recommendations (collection of fees at the amended certificate) and the request that supervisors consider measures to protect affordability. The proposal now advances to the Board of Supervisors for final action.