Board of Appeals continues Vallejo Street light‑well appeal to May 5 after new evidence raises notice and safety questions

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Wednesday continued an appeal over a building permit for 2472 Vallejo Street after new evidence and testimony cast doubt on whether planning staff should have given a neighbor notice before approving work to partially infill a shared light well.

The board voted 4-0 to continue the matter to May 5, giving both sides two weeks to meet with Planning and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), revise drawings if necessary and submit three pages of briefing by 4:30 p.m. the Thursday before the next hearing.

The dispute centers on permit #20212301935 (issued Feb. 22, 2021) for a kitchen-and-bath remodel that includes infilling a roughly 6‑by‑10 foot opening in a shared light well. Appellants Noel Frelico and Elizabeth Mazurski, represented by attorney Robia Crisp, told the board the permit’s plans do not show the neighboring wall as a non‑blank wall with windows facing the infill and therefore should have triggered a Section 3.11 notice under city rules and Zoning Administrator Bulletin 4.

"The plans don't show the neighboring wall as it faces the infill area and the fact that it has windows facing it," Crisp said, arguing the appellants were deprived of an opportunity to evaluate impacts to light and air.

Permit holder Evelyn Hu, who purchased 2472 Vallejo two months ago, disputed that the plans submitted to the city are incorrect and described a separate, non‑submitted draft plan that labeled a deck as "unpermitted." Hu said that draft was not a submitted permit set and suggested that if appellants had a copy it would mean someone had obtained it from a locked drawer: "If the appellant is in possession of that plan set, that would mean they broke into our unit and they stole a plan set," she said.

During public comment, tenant Eugene Anthony — who told the board he has lived in the building since 1988 — said he and relatives built the terrace decades ago without a permit. "I built or we built the terrace upstairs without a permit," Anthony said, a point DBI and Planning officials said could require legalization or removal of that structure if verified.

Planning’s Deputy Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez said staff originally reviewed the application as a limited infill (a small opening) and assumed the existing wall and deck were legal based on aerial photos going back to about 2002 and permit records. But he acknowledged that evidence presented at the hearing — including photographs and draft plans — could change that assessment: "If the deck is illegal, then that needs to be legalized," Sanchez said, adding that legalization could trigger neighborhood notification and likely a 3‑foot setback under residential design guidelines.

DBI Deputy Director Joseph Duffy told commissioners inspectors frequently encounter older, nonconforming property‑line walls in San Francisco and that field inspection could raise additional requirements. He said in many cases DBI requires revisions or a legalization permit rather than immediate demolition, but that missing structural details on the current plans raise questions.

Throughout the hearing commissioners proposed options to resolve the dispute short of halting all work. Several members suggested bifurcating the permit: allow noncontroversial kitchen-and-bath work to continue while removing the light‑well infill from the current permit so the owner can refile a plan set that addresses DBI's structural questions and Planning's noticing and setback concerns.

Commissioner Ah‑language and Commissioner Chang (note: transcript uses Commissioner Chang as the spoken form) proposed a compromise to preserve more light and air for the appellant by requiring a 3‑foot setback on the second and third floors; the permit holder said she would be willing to revise plans to add that setback.

After extended questioning of Planning and DBI staff and testimony from both parties and several neighbors, President Daryl Honda moved to continue the matter so the parties could attempt to resolve outstanding issues and return with revised plans. On that motion, Commissioners Lazarus, Chang and Swig voted "Aye," and the chair declared the continuance passed 4‑0.

The board also handled routine business at the start of the session: it elected Commissioner Rick Swig as vice president by a 4‑0 vote and adopted minutes from the April 14 meeting by a 4‑0 vote.

Next steps: The Board of Appeals asked both sides to meet with Planning and DBI, to prepare revised plans or a clarified filing if they want to legalize the deck or change the infill, and to submit a three‑page brief by 4:30 p.m. the Thursday before the May 5 hearing. The board will take the item up again at that hearing.