Board of Appeals denies jurisdiction requests for 1920 Pacific Avenue permits

The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied two jurisdiction requests for permits at 1920 Pacific Avenue on March 13, concluding the city did not cause the appellants to miss appeal deadlines and that other enforcement options remain available.

Vishal Law, a neighbor who said he and his wife bought their home during the pandemic, asked the board to take jurisdiction over an alteration permit for a trash enclosure (permit 202009164264) and a separate ADU permit (permit 202102225095) that would add four accessory dwelling units and require sprinklers. Law told the board he supported housing but said the permits were “built on a foundation of lies and misrepresentations” and that the permits should be opened to appeal so he could present evidence he submitted to the board staff.

Justin Zucker, representing the permit holder, argued the legal standard for taking jurisdiction is narrow: the requester must show the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the late filing. Zucker told the board the project had been publicly noticed in a pre-application packet in December 2020 and that plans were available online, and he urged denial of the jurisdiction requests on that basis.

Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told commissioners neither permit required neighborhood notice and that no block-book notice was recorded for the property. Kevin Birmingham of the Department of Building Inspection said the fire-escape plans and permit had been reviewed and issued properly and that DBI would investigate any formal complaint and could revoke a permit if it was found to have been issued in error.

Board members voiced sympathy for the appellant’s concerns but agreed the record did not show the city caused the requester to be late. Commissioner Epler moved to deny both jurisdiction requests on that basis; the motion carried 5–0. The board noted that the appellant retains other remedies, including filing complaints with the relevant departments or pursuing civil avenues for private agreements between neighbors.

The board’s action leaves the underlying permits in effect while preserving the appellant’s ability to seek administrative or civil remedies outside of this jurisdictional rule. The board did not make factual findings on the underlying merits of the construction or tenant-treatment allegations raised by the appellant.