Board upholds DBI/Planning approvals for 1555 Oak ADU permit over tenant claims

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 6 denied an appeal by tenants challenging an alteration permit that would convert ground-floor space at 1555 Oak Street into three accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The appellants alleged the permit applicant misled agencies about mandatory seismic retrofit status and unlawfully severed tenant parking and other housing services.

Brad Hearn of the Housing Rights Committee, representing the appellant, argued the project sponsor submitted inaccurate screening forms and used prior permits to justify demolition of a garage, producing an improper severance of housing services. "The landlord has misled city agencies, in particular DBI, the Planning Department, the Planning Commission," Hearn said, pressing the board to reset the permitting process so current tenant-protection rules would apply.

The permit holder’s engineer, Charles Perry, and planning and building staff said the applications were reviewed, plan-checked and issued consistent with code requirements. DBI’s Matthew Green summarized an extensive permit history and inspections and said structural and plan-check reviews were completed before issuance. Corey Teague, the Planning Department zoning administrator, said the permit predated recent changes to local rules limiting ADUs that reduce housing services and that the planning review found the application met planning-code requirements at the time it was approved.

The board debated jurisdictional limits between the planning/building review and the Rent Board, with the city attorney noting that questions over the severance of housing services and required tenant compensation are generally resolved through the rent-ordinance process.

Vice President Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal, concluding the building and planning departments properly issued and reviewed the permit. The motion carried 3-0.

The board declined to overturn the permit; tenants and advocates were advised the Rent Board remains the appropriate forum for claims that construction has unlawfully severed parking or other contractual tenant services and that compensation or other remedies should be pursued there.