Board denies appeal of fence permit at Treat Avenue; planning, DBI say documentation adequate

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 10 denied an appeal of a building permit for replacement of chain‑link fabric at 957 Treat Avenue (Parcel 36B), voting 5–0 to uphold the permit after hearing extensive public comment and departmental explanation about ownership documentation and permit scope.

Appellants and several neighborhood speakers argued the parcel has a long history of community pedestrian use (Mission Greenway) and questioned whether the permit holder, Seventeenth and Peralta LLC, delivered adequate proof of ownership; witnesses described decades of public pedestrian passage and urged denial of the permit for a gate that they said could block the right of way. "The new gate erected under this permit appears to be intended to illegally block pedestrian passage," Edward Hasbrook testified.

Planning (Corey Teague) and DBI (Matthew Green) told commissioners their records and the assessor’s database supported partial ownership by the permit holder and that the permit’s scope — replacing the fence fabric and adding reinforcing members — fit an over‑the‑counter repair classification. DBI noted the permit was suspended after a complaint and that an inspection remained outstanding; inspectors had viewed the supplemental work and found it still within the scope of the issued permit.

The permit holder’s attorney, Josh Riddless, confirmed a secured property tax statement was provided to DBI at the time of application and said the LLC has a recorded quitclaim deed and assessor records showing partial interest. Commissioners weighed the civil‑law complexity of parcel co‑tenancy against the departments’ determinations and concluded the hearing record did not show sufficient cause to overturn a ministerial, over‑the‑counter permit. The board therefore denied the appeal and allowed the permit to remain in force; DBI will proceed with standard inspection and enforcement processes where necessary.

The board encouraged additional interdepartmental coordination on complicated parcels and suggested agendizing broader policy clarifications on ownership documentation for future cases.