Board grants jurisdiction in Leavenworth condo permit dispute after departments acknowledge approval error

The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted a jurisdiction request 4–0 on March 2, 2022, in a dispute over work at 2154 Leavenworth Street after city departments acknowledged the permit approval had missed significant exterior and light‑well impacts.

Valerie Kirk, representing other owners in the building, told the board the over‑the‑counter permit (issued 09/22/2021; permit application referenced in board materials) described an interior remodel and a roof deck, but the work that began on site included an expanded staircase into a light well and other changes not reflected in the publicly posted permit language. “Only once the expanded staircase build began did we become alarmed about the scope of work,” Kirk said while asking the board to restore the owners’ appeal rights because the 15‑day appeal window had closed.

The permit holder’s counsel, Louis Sarmiento, said the permit application listed a roof deck and interior remodel and that some elements were carved out as owner exclusive use by the HOA’s governing documents; he urged the board to deny jurisdiction and said HOA remedies may apply. Planning Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam and DBI Senior Inspector Matt Green, however, said their follow‑up review found the scope exceeded the approved over‑the‑counter plans. Tam said the planned light‑well infill wasn’t adjacent to a blank wall as originally represented to the planner and that the mistake could trigger neighborhood notification requirements. Green said DBI’s plan checker had approved an overhang into the light well in error and that DBI issued a notice of violation on 02/28/2022 and a correction notice requiring revision.

Commissioners debated whether the department’s admitted plan‑check mistake provided the legal basis to grant jurisdiction. Vice President Anne Lazarus moved to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing an appeal; the motion carried 4–0. The board noted that if the permit is revised, the appellant will have an opportunity to appeal the revision, and urged the parties to work with DBI and Planning to avoid duplicate procedures.

Key details: the board said a revision permit will be necessary to correct the plans and that revision will be appealable; the requester has five days to file an appeal of the current permit if she chooses. DBI and Planning will pursue corrective permits and neighborhood notification where required.