Board of Appeals continues dispute over fire escape spanning 2507–2509 Pacific Ave to May 31

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 17 continued an appeal over a fire escape that spans two neighboring homes at 2507 and 2509 Pacific Avenue until May 31 so a full five‑member panel can vote.

Appellant James Lipsett told the panel the metal fire escape provides an ‘‘additional means of egress’’ for his family and recounted a 1990s kitchen fire in which a top‑floor occupant used the escape to reach safety. Lipsett said his household — including two young children and an elderly relative — relies on the structure for emergency exit and opposes its removal.

Appellant counsel Laura Strazzo said the fire escape appears in city records and was inspected in 1964 and in 2023, that the structure crosses the property line and is affixed to both buildings, and that the permit application and plans indicate the intent is to remove the fire escape. She warned that removal could create hazardous conditions and cited building and planning code sections raised in the briefs.

Counsel for the permit holders, Steve Williams, told the board the structure is unpermitted and nonconforming and that the Weinsteins — the current owners of 2507 — have a right to remove an unpermitted attachment from their property. Williams said his clients paid for inspections on their side, alleged the neighbor refused inspection access, and said the permit obtained was limited to work at 2507 and would not authorize work on 2509.

Representatives of the city’s planning department and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) told the board the permit was issued improperly. DBI inspector Matthew Green said submitted plans did not disclose that the fire escape is attached to two separate lots and that San Francisco Building Code section 106A requires a separate permit for each building or structure. Green also said the Fire Department told DBI it had approved the permit at plan review in error.

Commissioners questioned whether the permit’s description — ‘‘remove existing non‑complying fire escape’’ — could lawfully be limited to work on only one address when the structure clearly spans two properties. City staff and the board said work that affects two buildings typically requires two permits and that any permanent resolution may be a civil matter between property owners if they cannot agree to cooperative fixes.

To allow all commissioners to participate, President Rick Swig moved to continue the matter to the board’s May 31 meeting; the panel agreed to allow two minutes per side at the continued hearing to report any substantive changes. The motion to continue passed 3–0.

The board did not make a final determination on whether to revoke the permit on May 17. DBI and planning recommended the appeal be granted and the permit re‑examined; the permit holder said the intent was only to remove the portion attached to 2507 and that contractors had planned to lower the structure onto the neighbor’s property for the neighbor to address. The dispute includes overlapping questions of code compliance, property rights and whether remedies should be pursued administratively or in civil court.