Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee moves ADU planning-code amendments forward to comply with state law; file duplicated for further edits
Summary
Supervisors agreed to technical amendments and to forward one amended ADU ordinance to the full Board while duplicating the file so outstanding technical changes can be considered at a later hearing; Planning Commission recommendations on ministerial review and zone consistency were discussed.
The committee advanced an ordinance to bring San Francisco’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules into conformity with state law, accepted several technical amendments and duplicated the file to allow additional changes to be considered at a later date.
Supervisor Aaron Peskin, sponsor of the item, framed the ordinance as the next step in a multi-year effort to expand ADU options in the city and said the city attorney recommended the changes to bring local code into compliance with a state law effective Jan. 1. Planning Department staff summarized the Planning Commission’s recommendations: include single-family homes in multifamily zoning districts, clarify what spaces can be converted to ADUs (e.g., living area but not garages), ensure ministerial review steps complete within 120 days where required, and extend ministerial review options consistently across zones.
Public commenters included legal and housing experts who supported moving the ordinance forward while urging a clear implementation document. Michael Murphy (former appellate attorney) distributed a legal analysis questioning whether parts of the draft fully comport with state law; other speakers (housing advocates, developers, SPUR, Livable City) urged ministerial (streamlined) implementation and an updated ADU handbook.
Committee action: Supervisors agreed to make technical corrections to the ordinance language, forward the first amended file to the full Board with a positive recommendation, and duplicate the file so remaining amendments can be taken up at a subsequent hearing. The committee also recorded that the Planning Commission did not have sufficient information to recommend six specific amendments proposed by Supervisors Farrell and Sheehy and those will be revisited.
Next steps: The committee forwarded an amended version to the Board and duplicated the file to continue work on outstanding amendments; planning and city attorney staff will finalize implementing details, including ministerial review processes and any necessary zoning-administrator bulletins.
