The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–0 on July 26, 2023, to grant an appeal asking the board to revoke a May 12, 2023 building permit for 80740 Fourth Avenue, concluding that the ground-floor space functions as an unauthorized dwelling unit and that critical facts were omitted from the permit application.
Planning Department Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam told the board the ground-floor space meets the physical definition of a UDU (independent access, separate cooking and bathing facilities, and separation from the upstairs unit) and that new evidence showed a resident, Shu Shen Tan, continued to live there after she stopped serving as a caregiver. Planning staff said an enforcement planner initially screened the address and concluded there was no UDU based on owner statements and paperwork, but that later submitted evidence changed that determination.
Acting Building Chief Matthew Green told commissioners DBI inspectors found multiple building-code violations in the ground-floor space — unapproved wiring and plumbing, missing detectors, inadequate exits and ceiling heights — and said the department supports planning’s recommendation to revoke the permit because a key step was missed in the earlier review.
Appellant Shu Shen Tan and her attorney presented rent receipts and testimony that she has occupied the lower unit since 2007 and paid $400 monthly; the permit holder disputed tenancy and described family members as caregivers who made decisions for an elderly, infirm property owner. The permit holder denied that rent was accepted and said family illness complicated documentation.
After questioning and rebuttals, Commissioner John Trezvina moved to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis the permit was issued in error because the application failed to disclose accurate occupancy information. Commissioners Alex Lundberg, J R Epler and President Zweig recorded aye votes; the motion carried 4–0.
The board’s action revokes the permit that had been issued to remove the ground-floor living spaces without first obtaining a conditional use authorization that planning says is required to remove a UDU under Planning Code Section 3.17. The board did not direct criminal or civil enforcement as part of the revocation; DBI and Planning noted enforcement avenues remain if further action is warranted.
The board left open standard administrative remedies available to the parties and did not specify a new effective date beyond formally granting the appeal at the meeting.