[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6515101,"mediaKeyId","5020026-eaa93ae943e608a068e45091212e2ff1","parentId",5020026,"title","Board upholds Planning Department cancellation of permit to legalize ADU at 80744 Fourth Avenue; homeowner urged to seek reasonable modification or CUA","audioSeconds",3586,"startMs",3594000,"endMs",7869,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5020026-eaa93ae943e608a068e45091212e2ff1&start=3594&end=7","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5020026-eaa93ae943e608a068e45091212e2ff1/thumbnail_3594000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6515101/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-upholds-Planning-Department-cancellation-of-permit-to-legalize-ADU-at-80744-Fourth-Avenue-homeowner-urged-to-seek-reasonable-modification-or-CUA","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515101-d3c4a506ef5cc02e37394361e4171e64/orig.mp4?Expires=1776320844&Signature=OC3uUcPw4HWVQaDSmtWsIxZiZzRUqaOCA1Nl5AwPxSIrXDatdhXM7YftByImCfTpOOw~MUqlFb59ETjoYjS4-7edloBbjQJ4s3ypHWSDKntxP42LVN8EsvL7v3GLoZ7TyQ9il9WotP5-RwW1M4nNWOkqQAf52v~Gc82bB-SpkegtsaS0omtDj1M99PZGSTD37FfqxruDdypecJsJFXOJwEq2bdAURRSRrtoJfGT-R1SMxS6vwyHy3DOfhzTWqpeO-Ks6RN9YhmC8ER0TNSWZn1m3ii3CPMBNkOootb1ZhONs2TUIxV3kpqiZveGBes4sHkHo~jakt3DUZtO8AFVuBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-06-18T00:00:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 18 upheld the Planning Department's cancellation of a building permit that would have legalized an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 80744 Fourth Avenue, ruling the revised plans\u0000\u0000that kept an interior stair between the upstairs and downstairs units would produce a \"merger\" under the Planning Code and thus required a conditional use authorization (CUA) or a reasonable modification for disability accommodation. The board voted 4-0 to uphold the department's disapproval.

Homeowner Ling Law appealed the Planning Department's April 17 cancellation. Law told the board the interior stair has existed since the house was built, that both floors have separate kitchens and entrances, and that the stair is a \"lifeline\" for her 95-year-old, mobility-impaired father who relies on caregivers. \"This staircase is really a lifeline,\" Law said during her presentation and in a short walkthrough video she provided to the board.

Why it matters: the decision addresses two recurring issues in San Francisco housing enforcement: how internal connections between floors affect whether two spaces are treated as independent dwelling units, and how disability-accommodation procedures interact with zoning rules.

Planning department position and legal basis
Corey Teague, zoning administrator, described a longstanding zoning-administrator interpretation (dating to 1993) that treating an internal connection between the interiors of two dwelling units as a merger is appropriate because the connection makes it functionally simple to use the building as a single unit. Teague told the board that the revised permit proposed an \"interior connection\" and that, under the Planning Code and the ZA interpretation, the department could not approve the permit as amended. Teague noted two administrative pathways available to the homeowner: (1) file a reasonable modification (a disability accommodation process that is evaluated in consultation with the Mayor's Office on Disability) or (2) seek conditional use authorization to remove the UDU altogether.

Safety and building-code concerns
Joe Aspatel, senior building inspector for the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), warned that the plans as amended lacked required fire separation between separate units and that adding an interior stair without meeting fire-and-life-safety upgrades could create unsafe conditions. \"A fire separation does not exist between the two units,\" Aspatel said, and he explained that walls, horizontal assemblies and doors shared by two independent units would need appropriate fire-rating to meet code.

Applicant's account and options
Law described frequent caregiver trips up and down the stair to do laundry, retrieve medical supplies and respond in emergencies, and she said removing the stair or forcing an outside route would create unsafe conditions for her father. She told commissioners she attempted to apply for what she called a reasonable accommodation but that staff requested a fee payment before the department processed the application; Law said she could not immediately pay the fee ($887 as cited in the hearing) and asked the board to consider her circumstances.

Board deliberation and vote
Commissioners explored the technical distinctions between common-area circulation (where a common laundry or vestibule might be reached without traversing another unit) and an interior stair that opens directly into unit living space. Commissioners and staff agreed that the plan as drawn would allow the two floors to operate as a single dwelling, which triggers the merger interpretation and the requirement for a CUA unless a reasonable modification is granted for a qualifying disability.

Commissioner Jose Lopez moved to deny the appeal, saying the Planning Department disapproval was consistent with the code and interpretation and noting the alternative paths available to the homeowner. The board recorded a 4-0 vote to deny the appeal and the department's cancellation of the permit stands. The board chair and staff advised the homeowner that the reasonable modification process can be administratively reviewed by Planning with referral to the Mayor's Office on Disability and that conditional use authorization is the separate path if the owner instead elects to remove the UDU.

Clarifying details
- Property/permit: record lists permit 202309227235 for legalization of an ADU (one-bedroom, one-bath) and references a code enforcement NOV in the file (NOV number referenced in the record).
- Code citations: Planning Code section 3.17 (definition and treatment of UDUs/merger) and Planning Code section 3.05.1 (reasonable-accommodation provisions referenced by appellant).
- Fees and process: the board was told a reasonable-modification application fee of approximately $887 is required at present; Planning staff noted fee-schedules are set by ordinance and updated periodically.
- Safety: DBI said required fire-separation assemblies would be required between two independent dwelling units; an interior stair that connects unit living spaces would trigger higher fire-protection requirements.

What the homeowner can do next
Planning staff and DBI advised the homeowner of three paths: (1) file a reasonable modification application (disability accommodation) and request review/waiver of fees if eligible; (2) revert the building permit plans to the earlier scheme that removes the interior stair and pursue legalization consistent with separation requirements; or (3) pursue conditional use authorization with the Planning Commission to remove the UDU. Planning staff said reasonable-modification requests are often referred to the Mayor's Office on Disability for eligibility review and can include conditions (including time-limited accommodations) if granted.

Speakers and attribution
Direct quotes and attributions in this article are drawn from the hearing transcript and come from the following participants: Ling Law (homeowner/appellant), Corey Teague (zoning administrator, Planning Department), Joe Aspatel (senior building inspector, DBI), and members of the Board of Appeals (President John Trezwina, Vice President J.R. Epler, Commissioner Rick Swig, Commissioner Jose Lopez).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Jun 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Appeals on June 18 upheld the Planning Department's cancellation of a permit to legalize an accessory dwelling unit at 80744 Fourth Avenue, concluding that an interior stair linking the two floors would create a merger under the Planning Code unless a disability accommodation or a conditional use authorization is obtained.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6515106,"Board of Appeals denies rehearing request on 695 Rhode Island remodel; planning evidence deemed insufficient",2955,412000,3367000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5020026-eaa93ae943e608a068e45091212e2ff1&start=412&end=3367","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5020026-eaa93ae943e608a068e45091212e2ff1/thumbnail_412000.jpg","/articles/6515106/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-denies-rehearing-request-on-695-Rhode-Island-remodel-planning-evidence-deemed-insufficient","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515106-a56b4316b2e86ea1aba3d60a66071734/orig.mp4?Expires=1776320844&Signature=avEjYAgQF68MdRLM3FmdmuhCvd-TABJcrkNKuwz~zq45td1i0xFvCC2CPRMpZu9pAt4CahrgcgNe1p56LFzMt22w9Z2bmaK-4RdkrIkUzyaSgibrcxBzj~G5zdxAHH9TbaO7W~izDQrYFV1raf55mmOzsohNmTC~UC9Xg6rwK-8V2V8Wcqcix0o~uGYvCUPOlykY45AcRYlOFL~IPiisbxdL~oN8j0Q4dOSC2I14rPN~J--4iULyyWex5VhtNL4MtPK0tn1Ff5yhMKS0RtI5NlOoJQmRWaF2CxPB9liOnnyU5vja871PiUxnCyf-mTJr-gZ-5zDgGJSWjWWcXVh8tQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 18 denied a rehearing request for appeal No. 24-066 involving 695 Rhode Island Street, voting 4-0 to uphold the permit issued for a multi-level remodel and vertical addition. The rehearing request was filed after the board's May 21 decision to deny an earlier appeal and uphold the permit.

The board's action keeps in place permit No. 201912200232, described in the record as a remodel of an existing two-story, two-unit residence with a new rear horizontal extension on the first and second floors, a new third-floor vertical addition, and facade and driveway changes. Dan Feldman is listed in the record as the party requesting the rehearing; his side presented affidavits and additional documents they said were new evidence of residential use of a lower-level space.

Why it matters: the rehearing centered on whether the Planning Department's zoning administrator (ZA) should treat a lower-level space as an unauthorized dwelling unit (UDU). A finding of a UDU can trigger legalization or removal processes and can change how a property is permitted and inspected.

Planning department standard and new evidence
Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board that the department applies a two-part test for UDUs: a physical separation of the space and evidence that the space was actually used as a separate living unit. Teague said the department seeks a \"high level of evidence\" and that certain documents (rent board records, leases, separate utility accounts or clear unit-addressing on public records) are preferred. \"One thing we absolutely do not use on its own are affidavits,\" he told the board, adding that affidavits can be part of a cluster of evidence but are not sufficient alone.

Appellant representatives said they had submitted two sworn affidavits from former occupants and later provided a voter-roll printout and a broker marketing sheet. The board admitted the city voter-roll document into the record but declined to admit a private investigator's declaration and a newspaper/blog excerpt. Michael Morrison, who spoke for the rehearing requesters, said tenant affidavits and the newly submitted voter-roll item supported their claim the lower level had been used as a separately rented residence in the past.

Public comment and positions
Speakers calling for the rehearing included members of the public who said tenants had lived in the lower-level space and that the Planning Department's standard made it difficult to prove past occupancy. Alex Lau and Mayumi Fujio urged the board to reject the rehearing only insofar as it would delay the project; Pat Buckner and Leonard Young said the department's approach to affidavits and other evidence could disadvantage tenants and urged a rehearing.

Board decision and vote
Board President John Trezwina, citing the board's standard for rehearing requests, said the key question was whether new facts, if known at the original hearing, could have affected the outcome. \"As for me, right now, my standard has not been met,\" President Trezwina said. Commissioners Jose Lopez and Rick Swig voiced similar views during deliberations. Vice President J.R. Epler expressed some concern about whether tips or outside information might not be pursued fully by staff, but ultimately joined the majority.

Commissioner Rick Swig moved to deny the rehearing request on the basis that the new evidence would not have changed the original outcome. The board recorded a 4-0 vote to deny rehearing; the board chair said the decision letter would be distributed the following day and the permit would be unsuspended at that time.

Clarifying details
- Permit: 201912200232 (remodel / third-floor addition to a two-unit residence).
- Prior decision: May 21 board action had denied a prior appeal and upheld the permit (record cites an earlier variance decision as making the permit code-compliant).
- Evidence admitted: city voter-roll document for a named individual; private declaration and a news/blog item were not admitted.
- Governing standard: Planning Department requires corroborating records beyond affidavits (rent board records, leases, utility bills, clear unit-addressing) to determine a UDU.

What happens next
With the rehearing request denied, the permit remains upheld and will proceed once the board's formal decision is distributed and the permit unsuspension is processed. Any further administrative or judicial steps would depend on additional filings by parties in the case.

Speakers and attribution
Direct quotes and attributions in this article are drawn from the hearing transcript and come from the following participants: President John Trezwina (presiding officer), Vice President J.R. Epler, Commissioner Rick Swig, Commissioner Jose Lopez, Corey Teague (zoning administrator, Planning Department), Michael Morrison (representative for the rehearing requesters), Victor Marquez (attorney for the permit holder), and members of the public who addressed the board.","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 18 denied a rehearing request on an appeal over renovations at 695 Rhode Island Street, finding newly submitted documents did not meet the Planning Department's standard for proving an unauthorized dwelling unit.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board upholds Planning Department cancellation of permit to legalize ADU at 80744 Fourth Avenue; homeowner urged to seek reasonable modification or CUA

Board of Appeals denies rehearing request on 695 Rhode Island remodel; planning evidence deemed insufficient