Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DBI permit for large trellis at 1914 Greenwich Street
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a neighbor's challenge to a building‑inspection permit allowing a 22‑foot lattice/trellis at 1914 Greenwich Street, finding DBI and planning had reviewed the application and the permit was properly issued; the vote was 3–0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 24 denied an appeal of a Department of Building Inspection permit authorizing a large trellis (lattice) at 1914 Greenwich Street.
Attorney Shirley Mu, representing the appellant (the owner of the adjacent 1910 property), told the board the structure is roughly 22 feet high and 20 feet wide, permanently anchored, and was constructed before the permit was issued. She cited San Francisco building code sections governing fence height and permit submittal requirements and urged the board to require professionally stamped plans and to address alleged inspection access problems and potential fire‑hazard exposure because climbing roses can touch the neighbor's siding.
The permit holder described decades of roses and prior trellis structures at the site and said she followed DBI guidance to file a permit after an NOV; she told the board the trellis was reviewed over the counter and that the department required the submittal steps she completed. Planning and DBI staff both told the board the structure fits the department's definitions for a lattice/trellis and is not a solid fence; DBI said the over‑the‑counter review found no structural review was required because the lattice is more than 50% open and load is limited to plant weight and short posts set two to three feet into the ground.
Commissioners probed three issues: how the code distinguishes fences from trellises, whether a large freestanding lattice becomes a "regulated structure" requiring more review, and what remedies exist for private‑property disputes if vegetation touches a neighbor's siding. Board members emphasized the final inspection process as the safeguard that can require correction if work does not match approved plans.
After discussion Vice President Jose Lopez moved to deny the appeal. Commissioners voted 3–0 to uphold the permit and deny the appeal; the board noted that civil remedies for property damage or trespass remain available to neighbors if damage occurs.
What's next: DBI retains responsibility for final inspection and for requiring corrections if the permit or construction prove deficient. The board did not order permit revocation.
