Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies jurisdiction request over ADU placard date error
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a request to take jurisdiction over a state‑mandated ADU permit after finding the requester did not prove the city’s placard error caused her to file late; DBI acknowledged a clerical error but the board found insufficient evidence that the error prevented a timely appeal.
Vice President John Trezwina and two commissioners denied a jurisdiction request on Oct. 9, 2024, after hearing that the Department of Building Inspection placed the wrong appeal date on a permit placard for a state‑mandated accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Holly Watts asked the board to take jurisdiction, saying she saw a placard on the property on Sept. 10 and relied on an incorrect deadline; she filed an appeal on Sept. 11. Planning staff and DBI explained that state ADU law imposes a 10‑day appeal period for these permits, not the standard 15 days, and that the permit was reviewed and issued after staff found it compliant with state requirements. "This was a clerical error," DBI Chief Inspector Kevin Birmingham said. "The wrong date was put on the placard inadvertently." (Kevin Birmingham)
Birmingham told the board DBI would not oppose allowing the late appeal to proceed and had taken steps to reduce similar mistakes. Planning zoning administrator Corey Teague said the permit complied with state ADU law and noted that, had the application been filed later in 2024, AB 1114 would have made it ministerial and not appealable.
Vice President Trezwina said the board’s jurisdiction standard requires evidence that the city’s action caused a late filing. He said the requester reported seeing the placard on Sept. 10 and filing on Sept. 11; the board found no record showing the placard had been posted earlier than the requester’s stated observation. Given the potential harm to both parties and the absence of proof that the incorrect placard date caused a late filing, Trezwina moved to deny the jurisdiction request. The motion carried 3‑0.
Outcome: The board denied the jurisdiction request and did not reopen the permit’s appeal period. The permit remains in effect as issued; DBI said it has updated placards and training to prevent future clerical errors.
