Commission disapproves top‑floor addition at 505 Grandview; ADU review continued pending tenant protections

The Planning Commission on Nov. 2 took decisive action on a contested discretionary review at 505 Grandview Avenue after tenant objections and a Tenants Union (SFTU) Doctor argued that proposed ADUs and a fourth‑floor penthouse addition would force long‑term tenants to relocate for an indeterminate period.

Tenants testified that three long‑term, rent‑controlled households occupy the building, two units had been operated as short‑term rentals previously, and that proposed exterior changes (window openings and moved walls) combined with a top‑floor addition could increase the scope of required seismic retrofit work and force multi‑month relocations. The Tenants Union requested disapproval of the Fourth‑floor addition and asked that the ADU permit be continued until: (a) tenants receive a written agreement guaranteeing return or adequate compensation beyond the three‑month pass‑through prescribed in the rent ordinance, and (b) the sponsor provides separate, ADU‑specific plans that do not require carving into occupied units.

Applicant architect Toby Morris and project team argued the revised plan reduces interior renovations, adds four ADUs (converted from unused garage/sub‑basement areas), and limits disruption; the sponsor said tenants would be allowed to remain in place during construction and that relocation would be limited to 3–6 months when units were uninhabitable and that tenants would be compensated per code. Staff analyzed the project and recommended approval of the ADU and retrofit work, noting the ADUs add housing and that the building qualifies for seismic upgrades.

After extended testimony and technical questions — including whether the Fourth Floor would require additional seismic work beyond normal retrofits and whether the ADU plans were separately noticed — the Commission voted to disapprove the Fourth‑floor vertical addition permit and to continue the ADU permit to March 1 (to give the sponsor time to submit ADU‑specific plans and negotiate tenant protections). The Commission instructed staff and the sponsor to pursue a written agreement protecting tenants’ right to return or providing sufficient compensation if relocation exceeded the standard pass‑through period.

Ending: The Commission rejected the top‑floor expansion as proposed and preserved the ADU review pending clearer plans and tenant protections; the ADU application was continued to March 1 for additional documentation and potential negotiated agreements.