Board rejects appeal over rooftop trellis at 218 Union Street; commissioners say permit was properly issued

Appellant Bushra Khan, represented by attorney George Benitatis, asked the board to rescind a permit legalizing a rooftop trellis at 218 Union Street, arguing the applicant lacked authority to apply for the permit and that the structure served as a “spite” device used to harass the neighboring owner. Benitatis told commissioners the application paperwork was defective and that the broader facts — including a restraining order arising from prior neighborhood disputes — suggested the trellis’ true purpose was to interfere with the appellant’s enjoyment of her property.

Benitatis told the commission, “We’re asking that the permit that was issued be rescinded,” and urged the board to enforce DBI’s authorization form requirements. The permit holder disputed that characterization, said planning and DBI had reviewed the project, and described the trellis as a timber seating/covering intended for tenant privacy and comfort.

Tina Tam of the Planning Department said the property is within the Telegraph Hill landmark district and that preservation staff issued an administrative Certificate of Appropriateness; planning and preservation staff found the proposed trellis compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. DBI representatives explained their Central Permit Bureau practice of accepting applicant signatures and ID copies and said the bureau would accept supplemental affidavits if parties wished to add them to the file.

Multiple commissioners emphasized the board’s limited jurisdiction — that it must decide whether the permit was properly issued and applied for under applicable procedures, not resolve long-standing private disputes or motives. After deliberation Commissioner J R Epler moved to deny the appeal on the ground that the permit was properly issued; the board voted 5–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit.

The record in the hearing includes references to prior litigation and a restraining order noted by counsel; commissioners said those matters fall into other legal forums and that planning and DBI had certified compliance for the structure under the applicable preservation and building standards.