Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee amends and duplicates ADU ordinance to meet state pro‑housing deadlines, defers certain rent‑control amendments
Summary
The committee advanced an ordinance to align San Francisco ADU rules with state law to secure a pro‑housing designation and access to competitive state funding, while shelving local rent‑control amendments after the state HCD indicated objections. The committee duplicated the file and continued parts for further review.
Committee members on Feb. 5 reviewed an ordinance to amend the planning code to clarify ministerial approval for state‑mandated accessory dwelling units (ADUs), permit certain rear‑yard ADUs, and reconcile local procedures with state law.
Veronica Flores of the Planning Department described clarifying amendments — removing inaccurate uncodified findings, clarifying density calculations, and altering notice and special‑restriction recording language. President Peskin said he had drafted additional amendments to steer more ADU applicants into the local rent‑controlled program but withdrew them after the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) expressed disagreement with the city's legal interpretation. “We were told HCD may have taken action to harm the ability of our local affordable housing developers to access state funding,” Peskin said, explaining the political and legal tension.
Planning staff gave a tentative timeline: a March 7 Planning Commission hearing and the possibility of a March 19 second reading to meet a pro‑housing designation milestone that affects eligibility for competitive state affordable‑housing and transportation funds. Housing advocates and funders (SPUR, Housing Action Coalition, Council of Community Housing Organizations) urged passage to protect several grant applications totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in potential funding and support ready projects.
Given the legal sensitivity, the committee voted to duplicate the file, amend the original with Planning Department modifications and continue the amended original to the call of the chair pending Planning Commission review; the duplicated file was continued one week to allow the committee to incorporate additional amendments.
The committee stressed the importance of the pro‑housing designation for project competitiveness while recognizing state oversight may constrain local rent‑control preferences.
