Board upholds ADU permit at 277 Judson Avenue after DBI and planning explain scope; appeal denied

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 27 denied a neighbor’s appeal of an ADU permit for 277 Judson Avenue, voting 3‑0 to uphold the Department of Building Inspection’s issuance. The appellant had questioned whether the permit allowed excavation or horizontal expansion and said he could not find consistent plans in city records.

Ivan (appellant), who lives adjacent to 277, told the board he had tracked the project since 2015 and worried the current permit might include vertical or horizontal extensions or excavation. “I would like to clarify what really is happening, what’s on those drawings,” he said, noting confusion over which party pulled the permit and what work would occur.

Planning and DBI staff told commissioners the project was revised from a 2015 horizontal‑addition application to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) contained within the existing building footprint. Tina Tam, deputy zoning administrator, said the permit proposes a ground‑floor ADU and repairs to existing decks and stairs with ‘‘no expansion proposed.’’ DBI’s Matthew Green confirmed the application had been rechecked and that the permit application (originally filed in 2015 under a different scope) was plan checked and issued on 06/23/2022 as a site permit (Permit No. 201508123993). Green apologized that a notice of structural addition had been sent in error because of references to the original application and confirmed any excavation would require a separate permit.

The board and staff walked through how the appellant could view plans: DBI records management will allow on‑site viewing and can release copies after designer permission or after 30 days if the designer does not respond. DBI also clarified the threshold for stair repairs: work that replaces more than 50% of a stair assembly is treated as a replacement and requires a new permit and review.

The permit holder and designer said the scope had been scaled back to eliminate horizontal additions and that the ADU work fits within the building envelope. Commissioners pressed that the permit holder designate a single contact for neighbor communications; the permit representative agreed. After staff confirmed the permit was properly issued and that DBI would assist the appellant with plans access and enforcement if needed, Commissioner Tina Chang moved to deny the appeal; the motion carried 3‑0 (Commissioner John Transvenia: Aye; President Rick Swig: Aye; Commissioner Tina Chang: Aye).

DBI staff said anyone who believes construction exceeds approved plans may file a complaint and DBI will investigate enforcement and issue correction notices when appropriate.