Board of Appeals denies homeowner’s challenge over front‑yard parking screening at 1367 San Bruno Ave.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by homeowner Grace Bacigalupi on Oct. 11, upholding a zoning administrator’s Aug. 10 letter that found the front parking at 1367 San Bruno Avenue legal but said the existing front fence and green screening require a building permit and review for adequate screening under Planning Code section 142.

Bacigalupi told the board she and her husband have lived next door for decades and said the driveway and a 72‑inch fence were installed after a one‑car garage collapsed around 2000. She presented historic Sanborn maps and photographs and said the tennis‑court‑style screening has been in place for about 23 years. “I thought it was good screening,” Bacigalupi said, showing photos she said demonstrate vehicles are not visible behind the material.

Planning deputy zoning administrator Tina Tam said the department’s determination did not dispute that the parking is legal but concluded the existing fence, because it is over 3 feet at the front of the lot, requires a building permit and that any screening used to hide parked vehicles must be reviewed for compatibility with the residential design guidelines. “While Grace has a legal parking space at the front of her house, her fence, which is more than 3 feet in height, requires a building permit,” Tam said.

Board members pressed Planning on whether a permit could be issued retroactively and what materials would qualify as adequate screening. Tam said fences over the counter are routinely approved and that planners and architects in the department are available to work with property owners on acceptable designs. President Rick Swig told Bacigalupi the simplest path was to file a permit so a planner could confirm whether the existing screening or a modest modification would meet code.

Commissioner Trezvina said she sympathized that the homeowner had trouble getting clear advice before the LOD was issued. Still, the board must review whether the zoning administrator erred or abused discretion in issuing the letter of determination. On a motion by President Swig to deny the appeal and uphold the LOD, the board voted 3–1; Trezvina voted no. The board asked Planning to provide Bacigalupi the name of a planner at the end of the hearing and to assist her with the permit process.