Board of Appeals upholds firewall permit at 792 Hayes Street, urges DBI to review prior complaint

On April 30, 2025, the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by Lan Le of a Department of Building Inspection (DBI) permit for a one‑hour fire‑rated firewall at 792 Hayes Street, voting 4‑0 to uphold the permit.

The appeal centered on whether the permit at issue—limited to installing a one‑hour firewall on one side of an exterior stair—should be permitted where the parties dispute a separate, earlier removal of a portion of that firewall and whether that removal was ever permitted or properly documented. The board and city departments told the panel the permit before them covers only the firewall installation and was reviewed as code‑compliant.

Joseph Hospital, senior building inspector and plan reviewer with DBI, told the board that “this permit that was issued and the permit that I understand is appealable is the permit for the installation of the firewall only.” Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, added that the planning review covered only the firewall revision and that the work did not trigger neighborhood notification or other planning notice requirements. Both departments recommended denying the appeal.

Lan Le (who identified herself in testimony as the owner of 796 Hayes) told the board she filed a complaint in August 2023 alleging that a prior owner cut a section of a continuous one‑hour fire‑rated wall without a permit and then built a staircase that now uses her staircase landing. Le said an inspector earlier agreed the wall had been cut and that the complaint remains active with the Department of Building Inspection. “All I’m asking is that he goes and get a permit and get it approved,” she told the board.

The permit holder, Pat Deanda, testified that stairs and retaining work dating back decades changed access patterns and that some previous work had been done without permits by prior owners. Deanda said he obtained permits for the current work and that the disputed portion of the firewall would be addressed through the permit process. Deanda also described a prescriptive‑easement judgment he obtained in separate litigation.

After questioning from commissioners about jurisdictional limits—particularly whether easement encroachment or private civil disputes fall under DBI or the Planning Department—the board concluded it had not heard a basis to overturn the permit. Vice President J. R. Epler moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit; the motion passed 4‑0. The board also requested that DBI revisit the appellant’s complaint records and advise the parties about the status and next steps, noting that civil remedies may be required for easement disputes.

The board’s action addressed only the permit before it. Commissioners repeatedly distinguished between code‑compliance review (the board’s focus) and private civil issues such as alleged easement encroachments or past unpermitted work, which the departments and commissioners described as matters the parties may need to resolve separately.

The board’s denial leaves the permit intact; DBI agreed to investigate the appellant’s outstanding complaint and to follow up with the parties on possible administrative remedies or next steps.