[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6466628,"mediaKeyId","5823400-3a1a730834604467638d5d168ad52831","parentId",5823400,"title","Board upholds permit for 22-ft trellis after neighbor’s safety and code concerns","audioSeconds",4855,"startMs",2506000,"endMs",7361000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5823400-3a1a730834604467638d5d168ad52831&start=2506&end=7361","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5823400-3a1a730834604467638d5d168ad52831/thumbnail_2506000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6466628/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-upholds-permit-for-22-ft-trellis-after-neighbors-safety-and-code-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6466628-5ab4c0f442647e4aef32561a3b677320/orig.mp4?Expires=1770420166&Signature=e0BMIyipUdUMSjXD6uEzf5YV13LDFQVZq-q1-3IYTY-yS4iP-BxvjtSKMH7T4sc0-xdGcHwjDs1NgXvKvlloUAfZUVq6Whb9Ori2Ejr-1107Tybx2JRZOHSoOJaTkSu8Bo0E0l48Dvq2aBI6I9IHVSeR-YAfAHFS6VyOVPDiAVbfz5d4l4~HE-mcjhb8GqqOD-QiMmAEA8qJAzlnsHgkPzyEbHOu~cZJzlSpdDXAU0JaihB2VCo40WFgVKUOYfXhUabknXsQEvNYCp5Ou4ZomE35hbVmrgBLgk1nhS7jjYrEqibE7Pahj3q2tU2YMXJ6TJ2Wew8NTdKLUFf7aQs8SQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-09-24T00:00:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 24 denied an appeal of a Building Inspection permit that authorizes a large trellis-like lattice supporting climbing roses at 1914 Greenwich Street, concluding that the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Department properly permitted the structure.

The appellant, who represents the neighboring owner at 1910 Greenwich Street, argued the structure is a de facto fence that exceeds statutory height limits, was built without required stamped structural plans and engineering calculations, and creates fire and maintenance hazards by placing vegetation in direct contact with the neighboring siding. The appellant’s attorney, Shirley Mu, asked the board to deny the permit or to revise it to reduce the trellis height and move it farther from the neighbor’s building.

“The current trellis allows the roses to directly to grow on my client's building,” Mu said, and she raised concerns about footing depth, lack of engineer‑stamped plans and the inability of inspectors to view concealed footings because the trellis already existed when the permit was filed.

The permit holder, who owns 1914 Greenwich and testified in person, said she had maintained roses on the parcel for decades, had spent “tens of thousands of dollars maintaining this property, including the roses,” and that the structure is a decorative lattice for plants rather than a boundary fence. She told the board the structure had been approved by DBI staff after an over‑the‑counter review and that agency staff guided her through the permit process.

Department witnesses described code analysis at the hearing. Joe Ospital of the Department of Building Inspection told the board, “By definition, the trellis is not a fence,” and said the structure was reviewed over the counter and determined not to require structural calculations because it is a perforated, more than 50% open lattice and the loads from the plants, not solid wind loads, were the primary consideration.

Planning Department staff reiterated that the structure, as permitted, sits within the lot’s buildable area and falls under exemptions that do not require neighborhood notice. The department said planning had no issue with the permit.

The Board of Appeals heard a series of technical questions about which code sections apply, including whether long trellis panels anchored into the ground should be treated as fences (which are subject to height limits) or as decorative lattices. Appellants cited multiple building code sections, including references in the record to “section 456,” “Section 106A1,” and “Section 106A3.1,” asserting those required permits and construction documents for a structure of this scale. DBI said counter review and the department’s standard checklists supported approval.

After lengthy questioning and discussion about definitions and enforcement remedies, commissioners said the city agencies had followed their interpretation of the code and that the proper next steps for any future fire safety or trespass concerns would be with the San Francisco Fire Department or SFPD respectively. On a motion to deny the appeal, the board voted 3–0 to uphold the permit; President John Trezvina, Commissioner Rick Swig and Vice President Jose Lopez voted “aye.”

The board’s action maintains DBI’s permit; it did not impose new permit conditions. Commissioners and department staff noted the appeal raises neighbor‑to‑neighbor maintenance and civil issues — such as access to a retained siding for repair and potential property damage claims — that are outside the board’s administrative authority and that may be handled through civil processes or additional complaints to DBI or the Fire Department.

The permit holder told the board she was willing to continue communication with her neighbor and that DBI had guided her through the required steps when the trellis was permitted. The board closed the appeal by denying the request to overturn the permit.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Appeals rejected an appeal from an adjacent property owner who said a 22-foot trellis and climbing roses at 1914 Greenwich create fire and structural hazards and violate fence and permit rules. The Board found the Building Department and Planning staff acted within their codes and granted the permit.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6466634,"Board of Appeals upholds variance allowing 5-unit project at 1000 Broadway in Russian Hill",3255,441000,3696000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5823400-3a1a730834604467638d5d168ad52831&start=441&end=3696","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5823400-3a1a730834604467638d5d168ad52831/thumbnail_441000.jpg","/articles/6466634/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-upholds-variance-allowing-5-unit-project-at-1000-Broadway-in-Russian-Hill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6466634-0e08fed69a9339597d272a3323630448/orig.mp4?Expires=1770420166&Signature=edip0KTFPC~~AcJcAAdG-Jt3hXG6RrtneI3fHW64sdSumJWqzvinZuGiyqfJLkJMTQhJ3L0X93r2BlFp-03cvMMtCb0hA1BYGVuaIL5ekl8UIwB6fmGy6mFKDkrd7KjMo6osrGKnofUsa1wZU4HLm~~pEBbcfH-~DfgzqsNoP9HCbQYwnH6Xx3GMgr0DH~svlnkWm0vHN0QOUHj~f0x8z6ZR5z50mnlWECw7iYj5nssbeM2ykGNd~ldNCAAFeF304r958f5~wQUnC650Qw1c-l1bJIGzRqgjoj9D-wDZZOpayETtEoEzjsdXf0CISqzL2NDGdDjdQvaUIs9~-HBdzw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 24 denied an appeal of a variance for 1000 Broadway, allowing a developer to proceed with a proposal to build three buildings and subterranean parking that together would create five dwelling units on a consolidated corner lot in the Russian Hill historic district.

The board’s decision upholds the July 25 variance granted to Russian Hill Lending LLC. President John Trezvina said he found the zoning administrator’s findings “clear” and that he had not heard anything in the appellant’s arguments “to really disturb those findings.” The motion to deny the appeal passed 4 to 0.

The appellant, Jonathan Reid, urged the board to preserve a 15-foot minimum rear yard setback and argued the proposed development is out of scale for the historic RH2 neighborhood. “My only simple request is for the board to deny the variance as is and reasonably enforce a 15 foot minimum rear yard setback for the Arizona developer in line with our expectations of every San Francisco resident,” Reid told the board. He said the project would replace a quarter lot with 23,750 square feet of construction in an area typically featuring 3,000–4,000 square-foot homes.

The project sponsor’s representative, attorney John Kevlin of Ruben, Junius & Rose, and the project team described site constraints the team said justify the variance. “The existing site is undeveloped with a greater than 30% slope and a large coastal redwood tree at its southeast corner,” Kevlin said. He told commissioners the design preserves the tree and a historic retaining wall commonly called the Homer Parker retaining wall and concentrates much of the massing below grade in a podium to reduce the apparent above-grade scale.

Corey Teague, the Planning Department’s zoning administrator, told the board the department had reviewed the proposal and the decision letter laid out why the variance findings were met. “The the variance decision letter itself, clearly laid out the project and the rationale and arguments for the findings being met,” Teague said, adding the parcel is large enough that planning treated the three contiguous parcels effectively as one lot for code purposes and that subterranean construction is common on steep lots.

Commissioners asked about density comparisons raised by the appellant. Project counsel and planning staff said the development represents three separate buildings on three parcels that share a below‑grade podium and that some density comparisons in public comments compared non‑equivalent lot configurations. Kevlin and Teague both emphasized the design intention to limit visible massing above grade and to preserve open space: the project team reported the design would provide about 42% of the lot area as open space above the podium, compared with a 30% rear‑yard requirement in code.

The board recorded no change to the requested variance findings and denied the appeal. The vote was recorded as 4–0: President John Trezvina, Commissioner Rebecca Saroyan, Commissioner Rick Swig and Vice President Jose Lopez all voted “aye.”

What happens next: with the appeal denied the developer may proceed under the granted variance and issued permits subject to any outstanding building inspections, historic‑resource mitigations and standard departmental approvals. The board’s action was limited to the variance appeal; the Planning and Building departments retain authority over any later permit compliance or construction‑phase issues.

The board heard extensive written packets and multiple on‑the‑record presentations from the appellant, the permit holder’s counsel, and Planning Department staff. The hearing record includes the zoning administrator’s decision letter and project exhibits used in the appeal briefing.

A citizen concerned about scale and preservation may still pursue civil remedies or participate in future permit review steps, but the Board of Appeals has closed its review on this variance request by denying the appeal.

","The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal from a nearby homeowner and upheld a zoning administrator’s variance that allows removal of a rear yard setback and construction of three buildings with subterranean parking at 1000 Broadway.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6466623,"Board denies jurisdictional challenge and upholds suspension of permits at 874 Fell Street",1427,5263000,6690000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5823400-3a1a730834604467638d5d168ad52831&start=5263&end=6690","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5823400-3a1a730834604467638d5d168ad52831/thumbnail_5263000.jpg","/articles/6466623/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-denies-jurisdictional-challenge-and-upholds-suspension-of-permits-at-874-Fell-Street","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6466623-d09b9168d21cafba43a6344e80ee62be/orig.mp4?Expires=1770420166&Signature=cg1cqBYdv38GNoBPF6SCkJjOHTfMC-omoQXe86N2b~XjUtMu2FQuWgM2q5xk4KBXbtaaOKMZOtRFd33DCDa6kEHDfVlJ186G0sDnmMipy1kwmz0OQ9oims5LnpsgJUQPtvhlqqd4v92BimWtm9Ief12~ulG9wZl-acRmG1WcEOzmiQfMra1GcXFljzMpMNu-3cpDpsUbFOO8DL0OehBCTpkQFrrAjM~RB6K64xHc9zMAE5Kp4~ClfKt~iNruNwBjhgYbLKtKczhPvpbL0plajtIbrCdp8TDY5dxhapn6RB8Ec2tUB7Zm9V8da3FiKT612JMWkgDUIF33tsPmReszdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 24 declined to take jurisdiction over a late appeal of a notice of violation and later denied an appeal of Planning’s decision to suspend two earlier permits for work on a carriage house at 874 Fell Street.

The requester and property owner, Eric Roussel, asked the board to accept a late jurisdictional appeal of a final notice of violation and penalty decision related to an unauthorized dwelling unit (UDU). The board determined the Planning Department had provided notice by certified mail to the address on file and had also sent an email copy; President John Trezvina said the city’s mailing met due‑process standards and the board would not take jurisdiction on the late filing. The jurisdiction request was denied 3–0.

Separately the board considered Planning’s suspension of two older building permits tied to the rear carriage house (permit numbers from 2013 and 2020). Planning told the board it had found inconsistencies between the architectural drawings filed with Planning and the structural drawings filed with the Department of Building Inspection; specifically, Planning staff reported that structural drawings showed a larger amount of removal than the architectural plans showed and that discrepancy could, depending on the final scope, trigger de facto demolition rules that would require a conditional use authorization and possibly a variance.

“To be clear…there was more of the building being proposed to be demolished and removed in the structural plans than there were in the architectural plans,” Zoning Administrator Corey Teague told the board. Teague said Planning and DBI agreed the appropriate administrative step was to suspend the older permits so the permit holder can submit a single, consistent plan set that accurately shows the extent of removal or reconstruction before any work proceeds.

Roussel disputed the department’s process and said enforcement and repeated neighbor complaints had been unfair; he also said he had provided an updated plan to Planning and asked the board to allow work to continue. Roussel said he had asked Planning staff to confirm a January site visit showed no work in progress in the carriage house and that prior complaints had yielded no violation.

DBI supported the suspension, and the board framed the suspension as a protective measure for both the city and the property owner: it prevents inadvertent removal that might later be characterized as demolition and it gives the owner a clear path to submit corrected plans.

Commissioners agreed suspension — not revocation — was the correct administrative step. Commissioner Rick Swig said the suspension protects permit holders from inadvertently triggering a more onerous demolition/conditional‑use process and provides a path to resolve differences. On a motion to deny the appeal of the suspension, the board voted 3–0 to uphold the suspension and deny the appeal.

What happens next: Planning and DBI will expect a consolidated, accurate set of architectural and structural drawings from the permit holder. The suspension holds the two listed permits until the departments can determine whether the proposed work constitutes de facto demolition requiring a conditional use authorization, or whether a corrected plan can proceed under the existing permitting framework.","The Board of Appeals rejected a request to reopen a late appeal over a notice of violation at 874 Fell Street and upheld the Planning Department’s suspension of two earlier permits while departments reconcile architectural and structural plan discrepancies for a rear carriage‑house project.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board upholds permit for 22-ft trellis after neighbor’s safety and code concerns

Board of Appeals upholds variance allowing 5-unit project at 1000 Broadway in Russian Hill

Board denies jurisdictional challenge and upholds suspension of permits at 874 Fell Street