Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unauthorized Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds zoning administrator on UDU at 807 44th Avenue; appeal denied
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a challenge to a zoning administrator determination that an unauthorized dwelling unit at 807 44th Ave had been "rented for consideration," making it ineligible for an administrative removal exemption. The board concluded the record supported the administrator’s determination and noted alternative paths such as conditional-use authorization remain available.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 14 denied an appeal by property owner Ling La challenging a zoning administrator’s letter of determination that an unauthorized dwelling unit (UDU) at 807 44th Avenue had been rented for consideration within the last 10 years.
La argued by Zoom that the occupant was a live-in caregiver paid by a third party and that receipts relied upon by the city are unverified and inconsistent. She said the city’s prior rulings created an administrative gridlock that left her unable to legally pursue demolition or legalization without costly conditional use authorization (CUA) processes.
Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator, explained the department relied on prior tenant declarations, rent receipts and the long-term nature of occupancy by a non-family member to conclude the unit had been rented for consideration and therefore was not eligible for the single-family carve-out that allows administrative removal without a CUA. Teague noted the code does not define "rented for consideration" and that this is a novel factual issue in the board’s practice.
Commissioners focused on the evidentiary record and credibility of declarations and receipts. President John Trezvino said the key question was whether the unit had been rented for consideration in the 10-year period and that available documentation supported the zoning administrator’s determination. Commissioner Saroyan moved to deny the appeal; the motion passed 3–0.
The board noted that a property owner may still pursue a conditional use authorization to remove a UDU but that such an application carries time and cost and is decided case-by-case by the Planning Commission.
