Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Parking Tenants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds variance for ADU project at 2230 Turk Boulevard, denying tenants’ appeal
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a tenants’ appeal challenging accessory dwelling unit (ADU) conversions at 2230 Turk Blvd., ruling the rear-yard variance met the five required findings and upholding the zoning administrator’s decision. The board voted to deny the appeal after hearing tenant safety, parking and notice concerns.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 5, 2018 denied a tenants’ appeal of a Planning Department variance for an ADU project at 2230 Turk Boulevard, concluding the zoning administrator’s decision met the five findings required to grant a rear-yard variance.
Tenant Christina Sabre and several long-term residents testified the project would remove or reconfigure garage parking and storage they rely on, causing safety and financial hardship for seniors and others who said their garages are part of leases. Sabre said negotiations with the project sponsor resulted in an inadequate confidential offer and that tenants lacked meaningful notice. The San Francisco Tenants Union also spoke about potential erosion of tenant services under ADU conversions.
John Hood, the project architect, and the project sponsor said the application was revised from an initial proposal of five ADUs down to three; they said the revised project retains three leased parking spaces, adds building safety upgrades tied to required seismic/soft-story work, and followed the city’s notice and review procedures. Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department explained that changes to the planning code and the ADU process allow removal of vehicular parking in some cases and that bicycle parking may be substituted in certain districts; he stated the department found the five findings for the rear-yard variance were met.
After questioning by commissioners about leased versus unleased parking spaces, unit counts, and notice, Vice President Rick Swigg moved to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator’s issuance of the rear-yard variance. The board voted: Lazarus Aye, Honda No, Tanner Aye, Vice President Swigg Aye; the motion carried and the variance was upheld. Commissioners emphasized the distinction between planning/jurisdictional authority (variances and code compliance) and contract/lease disputes, which may be pursued before the Rent Board or in court.
The decision allows the project to proceed under conditions reflected in the adopted findings and does not adjudicate any separate tenant–landlord contract claims.
