The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 30 granted three appeals of building permits for a proposed four-unit flag-lot development at 1819–1825 Fulton Street, resolving a months‑long dispute over whether the project’s narrow utility alley provides adequate emergency access.

The appeals were filed by neighbors who said the lot’s only street access is a narrow 42‑inch corridor that quickly narrows where a gate and hardware would further reduce the clear opening, creating a ‘‘choke point’’ that could trap residents during a fire, earthquake or other emergency. ‘‘If we were in this unit … there’s a real likelihood of folks being trapped in this lot,’’ said Meg Gray, representing NOPA West Neighbors, during the hearing.

The developer’s team, including project architect and co‑owner Troy Kishanipur, told the board the project meets applicable building and fire codes and that DBI and the San Francisco Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed site access. ‘‘We have a code‑compliant project. We followed appropriate procedures,’’ Kishanipur said, citing pre‑application reviews, two‑hour exterior fire walls, standpipes and an NFPA‑13 sprinkler system.

Senior Building Inspector Joseph Ospital of the Department of Building Inspection told the board that the narrowest section of the access path exceeds DBI’s 36‑inch minimum requirement and that gate openings are governed by a 32‑inch clear net door opening under the California Building Code. ‘‘This project provides a passive egress in excess of the minimum required at 42 inches,’’ Ospital said.

Appellants countered that the applicable code terms and occupancy classification matter. They argued the development should be considered under R2 rules or as an exit passageway that needs broader unimpeded width in practice, and showed photographs they said demonstrated how gate frames and hardware reduce the clear opening. Henry Tang, an appellant, cited CBC provisions governing exit passageways and argued the alley could not reliably maintain the unimpeded width needed when hardware, hinges and posts are considered.

After hearing testimony from the planning department, DBI, the permit holder and more than a dozen members of the public for and against the project, commissioners negotiated a narrowly tailored condition to address the specific safety question about the gate. The board concluded it could impose a plan revision requiring that the interior gate have a clear net opening of not less than 36 inches, excluding fixtures, and approved its motion by a 4–0 vote.

The board’s final action requires the applicant to revise the approved plans to show the gate detail and clear net opening before the permits proceed. The board also discussed but did not disapprove the project’s density; Deputy City Attorney Jen Hoover advised that conditioning plans on a safety detail does not amount to a disapproval or density reduction under the state’s Housing Accountability Act.

Speakers at the hearing voiced a mix of views. Supporters of the project argued San Francisco needs more housing and said the project had been thoroughly reviewed; one resident said, ‘‘We are in house arrest in San Francisco … every unit counts.’’ Opponents emphasized neighborhood safety, fire risk to adjacent wood‑frame houses, and the Board of Supervisors’ earlier 2020 action limiting the lot to two units. The board’s condition aims to address the practical egress concern while allowing the project to proceed under the departments’ interpretation of the code.

The Board of Appeals’ order requires plan revisions showing the gate’s clear net opening; the hearing record indicates DBI and the planning department remain the technical reviewers for detailed compliance. The board indicated it will rely on the departments to verify that the revised gate detail meets the condition before finalizing permit actions.