San Francisco Board of Appeals denies tenants'jurisdiction request over 1064 Dolores ADU permit

SAN FRANCISCO ' The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4-0 on May 22 to deny a jurisdiction request from tenants at 1064 Dolores Street seeking to challenge a building permit that would add accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to their building.

John Kessler, a tenant at the address and the requester, told the board that tenants "only learned about this project indirectly" and that management'identified in the record as Green Tree Property Management/Veritas Investments'had provided "vague and often conflicting" information about the scope, duration and mitigation for construction. Kessler asked the board to consider prior board actions in similar cases and argued tenants were effectively denied an opportunity to appeal because they received no notice when a site permit was issued in September 2018.

Why it matters: Tenants said the work could remove amenities they currently use, including parking spaces, storage lockers and an on-site laundry, and could last several months. The issue raises broader questions about whether the city should require notice to tenants when a site permit for ADUs or related retrofit work is issued.

Officials'what they said: Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department said the property is in an RM-1 zoning district and that planning reviewed and approved the ADU proposal in December 2017 and the site permit was issued in September 2018. "There is no notice under the planning code for accessory dwelling units," Sanchez said, adding that a courtesy notice the department began recommending the previous summer did not apply to this permit because the planning approval predated that policy.

The property owner'represented by attorney John Kevlin'told the board that none of the tenants would be displaced by the work and that temporary accommodations would be provided if a particular amenity needed to be used during construction. "None of these tenants will be displaced from their units as part of either the ADU project or the seismic upgrade of the building," Kevlin said.

Joe Duffy of the Department of Building Inspection said DBI and other agencies reviewed and issued the site permit, that required fees (about $20,300) had been paid, and that DBI has no noticing requirement for this type of permit. "I don't see anything untoward about the permit," Duffy said.

Tenant perspective: Another resident, Adrian Onzaldua, confirmed he received no notification from the landlord or city agencies when the permit was issued and said the estimated duration of the combined retrofit and ADU work could be eight to nine months. He urged the board to consider whether tenants in similar situations should have access to the appeals process.

Legal context and board decision: Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi advised the board that its decisions are not precedential and cautioned against creating new notice requirements that belong to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioners debated whether concerns about loss of services are primarily within the rent-board or legislative domain and whether the city had "intentionally or inadvertently" caused a late filing by the requester. Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the jurisdiction request "on the basis that the city neither intentionally nor inadvertently caused the requester to be late." The motion carried 4-0.

Outcome and next steps: The board denied the jurisdiction request; the site permit is not suspended and work may proceed under existing permits. Board staff advised the appellant he could follow up with city departments about notification options such as block-book alerts or department-level notices.

The board adjourned with no further business on the agenda.