Board of Appeals upholds cancellation of two Wawona Street permits

The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by Nala Awad on Aug. 27, 2025, upholding the Planning Department's cancellation of two building permits for 22 Wawona Street.

The permits at issue — application numbers 202002285795 (vertical four‑story addition; third‑floor window work) and 202002285793 (change of use to an accessory dwelling unit, landscaping and front‑setback work; citing Ordinance No. 95‑17) — were originally submitted in 2019–2020 and were canceled by the Planning Department on July 3, 2025, for “failure to submit requested or required revisions” and “no response from applicant” to an email dated March 18, 2025. The board voted 4‑0 to deny the appeal and leave the cancellations in place.

Why it mattered: The permits would have allowed a multi‑floor addition and an ADU conversion at an in‑city property. Appellant Nala Awad told the board her project stalled after repeated plan revisions, staff turnover and a multiyear COVID delay, and that she became "burnt out" and stopped engaging with revisions. Planning staff contended that, beyond delay, the most recently submitted plans lacked information required for review and that elements of the proposed project, as drawn, did not comply with the planning code.

Planning Department timeline and staff view: Corey Teague, the department's zoning administrator, summarized a multi‑year review. He said initial COVID‑era slowdowns were followed by rounds of plan comments; the department provided detailed plan‑check letters and met with the applicant in March 2023. Teague said the applicant stopped submitting adequate revisions after that meeting. "At some point in time when there's a lack of adequate response, the appropriate action is to cancel the application," Teague told the board, adding that the record shows repeated opportunities and that he was not aware of any planning approval ever having been issued for these plans.

Appellant's account: Nala Awad said the project began before the pandemic and that repeated minor changes requested at counter meetings — followed by long waits and staff reassignments — left her unable to reengage. "I was just burnt out," she said, describing repeated trips to the planning counter and redesign work that she felt should have been consolidated into fewer requests. She disputed characterizations that the plans had ever been formally approved by Planning.

Board discussion and vote: Commissioners weighed the department's record of outreach against the appellant's explanation of delays. Commissioner Rick Swig (mover) said the permits were not code‑compliant in their current form and that allowing them to remain pending would not benefit anyone; he moved to deny the appeal and uphold the cancellations. Vice President Jose Lopez, President John Trezvino and Commissioner Rebecca Saroyan all voted aye. The motion carried 4‑0.

Next steps and options for the applicant: Planning staff told the board the appellant may reapply immediately after the 12‑day rehearing window, and the department recommended that any new application be developed in closer collaboration with planning staff — including pre‑submittal counseling at the planning information counter or a paid project review meeting — to ensure a code‑compliant submittal. Teague said there is no apparent regulatory advantage to preserving a 2019/2020 filing versus a 2025 refile for this type of ADU project.

Public comment: A neighbor, Louis Dorsey, testified in opposition, saying he had not received adequate notice and expressing concerns about neighborhood character and parking if the project proceeded.

The board noted the 12‑day rehearing window; if no rehearing is requested, the cancellations stand and the applicant may refile.