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

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.