Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies neighbors’ late jurisdiction request over 4020 First Street permit
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 11 denied a jurisdiction request from neighbors who argued a building permit for 4020 First Street hid a 12‑foot excavation and should have triggered neighbor notice; city staff said the permit underwent months of review and did not require notice under Planning Code section 3.11.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a jurisdiction request on Dec. 11 that sought review of a building permit for 4020 First Street, ruling 4‑0 that the standards for reopening the matter were not met.
Neighbors represented by attorney Jeremy Paul told the board the permit was effectively approved without proper neighborhood notice and that the project includes a "12 foot excavation" not disclosed in the permit description. Paul asked the board to take jurisdiction so neighbors could challenge the permit outside the normal appeal window.
The permit holder, who identified himself as Rod Roman, said the permit was reviewed "in house for 11 months" and that the project’s architectural elements are "below 3 feet of existing grade," meaning no variance was required. Roman said the project had been discussed in the conditional use authorization process and that DBI inspectors had verified construction "per plans."
Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board the question before it—whether the board should exercise jurisdiction after the appeal period—was separate from whether a variance was required. Teague said his review found the permit "would not trigger neighborhood notice under 3.11" of the Planning Code and that he did not see plan features that would have required a variance. He offered to re‑review the plans if the departments received a complaint.
Kevin Birmingham of the Department of Building Inspection told the board DBI had routed the permit through multiple stations and that an unannounced inspection found work was being performed "exactly as per plans." DBI asked the board to dismiss the jurisdictional request.
In discussion, several commissioners said the record did not show the city had intentionally or inadvertently prevented timely filing of an appeal. One commissioner stated that, while the city may comply with procedural checkboxes, it should do more to educate neighbors about appeal rights and notification options. The board then moved to deny the request; the motion carried 4‑0.
The board also adopted the Nov. 13, 2024 minutes earlier in the meeting. With the denial of the jurisdiction request the matter is closed before the Board of Appeals; planning and DBI staff said they remain available to review the permit and to accept complaints or requests for revision if neighbors pursue remedies through departmental processes.
