Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU Parking Storage 759 767 Sixth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues ADU/parking appeal at 759–767 Sixth Ave. to allow revised plans and tenant notice
Summary
The board continued an appeal over a DBI site permit for ADUs at 759–767 Sixth Ave. to April 17 so planning and building departments can review revised plans that would retain two parking spaces and a storage area and to ensure tenants receive proper notice; the continuance passed 5–0.
The Board of Appeals on April 3 continued an appeal of a Department of Building Inspection site permit affecting 759–767 Sixth Avenue to April 17 to give planning and building staff time to review revised construction drawings and to allow tenants and departments to verify notice and protections.
Appellants Robin Zack and co‑appellant tenants said the permit as issued proposed to convert garage and storage space into four accessory dwelling units (ADUs), removing tenant parking and storage that they say are protected by lease and San Francisco ordinances. They said they were not given the required notice in common areas or by mail and described the issuance as a surprise that would remove housing services they rely on.
Representatives for the permit holder said they had met with tenants and produced a revised exhibit (A201/A150) that would restore two parking spaces and the contested storage area and that they would submit a full set of revised plans to the departments. Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department reviewed the revised plan shown to the board and said it could meet planning code requirements if the permit holder dropped one of the four proposed ADUs (resulting in three ADUs) and retained the two parking spaces; he recommended the board continue the item so DBI and Planning could formally review a complete revised set.
Neighborhood and tenant‑rights speakers, including a representative from the San Francisco Land Use Coalition, urged the board to insist on verifiable tenant notice and suggested that tenants pursue rent‑board remedies if property owners remove parking or storage without just cause. The permit holder said they had posted a G23 notice by the garage and mailed the required language once the requirement became applicable mid‑process.
President Frank Fung moved to continue the matter to April 17 to allow the permit holder to have revised plans reviewed by DBI and Planning with the goal of returning with a special conditions permit that would memorialize the parking and storage arrangement if the departments approve the revisions. The motion carried 5–0.
