Committee advances ADU ordinance after wide public comment; retains tenant-notification and pre-application protections

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee voted July 9 to send an accessory-dwelling-unit (ADU) ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation after making several committee amendments and after extensive public comment from tenants, neighborhood groups and housing advocates.

Sponsor remarks and planning staff outlined multiple changes: allowing expansion of ADUs within the buildable envelope; clarifying code sections to treat filling under cantilevers and decks as permitted obstructions; permitting a one‑story expansion of standalone garage structures on corner lots within an existing footprint; allowing dormers on converted garages even if they extend into required rear yards; permitting an in‑lieu fee for street-tree requirements and applying that to legalization of unauthorized units; and amendments addressing an eviction loophole in the legalization program (clarifying five‑year price control applicability and offering first-refusal to previous tenants when units are legalized).

Planning staff also described an operational change at the Department of Building Inspection: a new screening form and an owner affidavit requiring disclosure of housing services defined by the rent ordinance and tenant notification where ADU work could remove services. "Currently at DBI, they require a screening form which precedes the ability to file a permit for ADUs... we have established a new procedure that requires an owner affidavit," Marcel Boudreaux said during the committee.

Public commenters praised the goal of more ADUs but urged stronger safeguards: compliance with state ADU law, retaining neighborhood notification for certain envelope expansions and side/rear obstructions, minimum/maximum unit sizes to preserve 'accessory' character, and protections for tenants who could lose parking, storage or laundry. The sponsor and staff repeatedly clarified that buildable-area language and the scope of administrative approvals would be cleaned up before full board consideration and that the committee would require a mandatory pre‑application meeting for fill-in under cantilevers or decks at the full board.

The committee approved the staff‑recorded amendments and moved Item 2, as amended, to the full Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation. It also directed staff to correct terminology (for example, 'built envelope' to 'buildable area') and to preserve tenant-notification safeguards where specified.