Board of Appeals denies appeal over 1555 Oak Street Unit 4 permit

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3–0 on June 30 to deny an appeal of a building permit for Unit 4 at 1555 Oak Street, affirming approvals by the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection.

Shaka Miller, the appellant, told the board he opposed the permit because of “two standing notices of violation that are still active” and alleged that unpermitted demolition in the garage and backyard released hazardous materials that had not been abated, exposing Unit 4 directly above the garage. Miller also raised concerns about what he described as multiple, piecemeal permits across the 12‑unit building and alleged tenant harassment and attempted buyouts related to ongoing construction.

The permit holder’s architect, Charles Perry, and the property manager, David Alexander, said the work was part of a larger, phased remodel and that hazardous‑materials abatement was performed by licensed firms. Perry told the board that the demolition work had been handled under required California rules and that, to his knowledge, “all the requested work on those NOVs has been abated” and inspectors had not shown active hazardous releases during their site visits.

Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department summarized the permit record and neighborhood notice process, noting that Planning reviewed the application in 2020 and approved the mainly interior work after required reviews. Joe Duffy of DBI said the permit had been filed in November 2019, issued in May 2021 and briefly suspended earlier in June before the hearing; DBI inspectors had investigated complaints, issued a July 2020 stop‑work order tied to dust/asbestos concerns, and later documented permit activity that DBI judges could be reconciled with inspections.

Commissioners said staff documentation and answers to questions did not provide sufficient ground to overturn the departments’ approvals. Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued; the motion carried 3–0. The board did not adopt any additional conditions.

The board advised Miller and the permit holder that any remaining code or complaint issues could be resolved through continued inspections and follow‑up with DBI.

The appeal concluded with the board upholding the Building and Planning departments’ earlier approvals; no rehearing or additional board conditions were set at the meeting.