Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals removes fence and gate from alteration permit for 670 Shotwell Street
Summary
On March 5, 2025, the San Francisco Board of Appeals granted an appeal and modified an alteration permit for 670 Shotwell Street to remove a fence and gate from the scope of work after the parties agreed the fence is entirely on the permit holder's property and does not require a building permit.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4-0 on March 5, 2025, to grant an appeal and modify an alteration permit for 670 Shotwell Street to remove a fence and gate from the permit's scope of work.
The parties — appellants Mickey and Art Christiana and the permit holder, Beth Miles — reached an agreement, facilitated by the Planning Department, that the fence and gate are built entirely on the permit holder's private property and therefore do not require a building permit. President Trezvino read the agreed motion and moved to grant the appeal and modify the permit accordingly.
The board's action modifies permit number 202409170992, originally issued January 3, 2025, for alteration work that included installation of an exterior door and construction of a privacy fence and gate. The board voted to remove the fence and gate from the permit because, according to the parties’ agreement and Planning Department facilitation, those elements sit entirely on the permit holder’s land and do not require separate permitting.
President Trezvino read the motion on the record: "to grant the appeal and modify the permit to remove the fence and gate from the scope of work on the basis that the fence and gate are built entirely on the permit holder's property, and they do not require a building permit." The motion carried 4 to 0, with Commissioners Lopez, Epler and Swig recorded as voting aye.
After the vote, board staff said the parties must supply a revised drawing that eliminates the fence; the parties were instructed to pursue a special conditions permit administratively and were told there will be no fee for that revision.
No member of the public spoke on the item during the hearing. The board noted the agreement was reached with Planning Department facilitation and the parties were recorded as supporting the settlement.
The board's modification removes the fence and gate from the formal permit record; staff will process the revised drawings and the special conditions permit to conclude implementation of the board’s action.
