Board of Appeals denies jurisdiction request from 1505 Dolores Street resident

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 30, 2025 denied a jurisdiction request from Michelle Tacey to take up a challenge to a building permit issued for 1505 Dolores Street.

Tacey asked the board to take jurisdiction over building permit number 202205124169, issued Aug. 28, 2024, saying she did not receive timely notice and therefore could not file an appeal within the 15-day window. The board’s legal staff and city departments told the panel the permit notice was mailed in accordance with code requirements and that the requester’s absence from her mailbox, not a departmental failure, caused the late filing.

The request matters because the board may grant jurisdiction in limited circumstances when a city action or omission caused a requester to miss the appeal period. President Trezvino directed the parties to focus on whether any city action inadvertently or intentionally prevented timely filing; city staff said the department followed the statutory mailing procedures.

Laura Strazzo, attorney for the permit holders, argued that the notice was mailed and that the requester had known about the permit earlier and declined steps that would have provided additional notice. Strazzo said the mailing “provides full information about how to file the appeal,” and noted the requester had been aware of the project since April 2022, had declined a pre-application meeting and did not use available extra-notification options.

Michelle Tacey testified by Zoom that she did not receive the mail notice while she was away and that, had she received different forms of notice, she would have filed on time: “The city action was the act of mailing the notification… Because of the city's process, you inadvertently, didn't give me the proper notification for me to receive it, timely.”

City staff confirmed that notices for this type of permit are sent by U.S. mail under the applicable code. Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, explained the planning code changes that limit when neighborhood notification is required and said this project did not meet the thresholds requiring the pre-approval neighborhood notice.

After discussion, Vice President JR Epler moved to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city neither intentionally nor inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing an appeal. The motion carried 4 to 0.

The board’s disposition means the underlying permit stands and the requester does not get an extended appeal period. The board record notes that city departments remain the venue for complaints about permit notices or other procedural questions.