Board of Appeals revokes gate permit for disputed Mission Greenway parcel

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 26 granted an appeal and revoked a building-permit to replace a gate at 957 Treat Avenue, saying the permit was issued in error because the applicant was not the recorded property owner. The board voted 5–0 to grant the appeal and revoke DBI permit 202303022910.

The appeal was filed by Friends of the Mission Greenway, represented by Elizabeth Creeley, who told commissioners the neighborhood group does not claim title but opposed a permit granted to Seventeenth and Peralta LLC, which the appellant says is not the owner. "No one has a legal right to be on that parcel currently," Creeley said during her presentation, stressing the group’s goal of preserving public access and the Greenway’s community uses.

Planning Department Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam told the board her office’s records show the assessor lists John Center Company as the recorded owner of Lot 36A and that Seventeenth and Peralta LLC is not the owner. Planning recommended granting the appeal and revoking the permit because the application listed an incorrect owner: "Planning Department at this point recommends that the board grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that the permit was issued in error," Tam said.

Matthew Green, Chief Building Inspector for the Department of Building Inspection, testified that DBI issues over‑the‑counter repair permits after confirming a licensed contractor and business registration, but does not independently verify lot ownership when a licensed contractor is involved. Green said DBI found no recorded easements in the recorder’s office and concluded the permit was improperly issued: "If the issue of ownership was not brought up, I would say that this permit was issued properly. However... it does appear that Seventeenth and Peralta LLC does not own this lot," he said, recommending revocation.

Representatives for the permit holder, who identified themselves as Alex Menendez and Rudy Rucker and said they operate the business Monkey Brains from adjoining property, argued the company has a protected use of the lot as an easement holder and said repairs were needed for safety and security. Menendez said the company paid delinquent taxes to stabilize the site and asserted a prescriptive easement based on long‑standing use. He also said the work before the board was a repair of an existing fence rather than a new enclosure.

Commissioners repeatedly cautioned that the board’s legal role is narrow: it may determine whether DBI made an error in issuing the permit but cannot adjudicate ownership or establish prescriptive easements, issues the city attorney said would belong in civil court. After hearing planning and DBI staff recommend revocation, receiving extensive public comment from neighbors and community groups, and discussing practical consequences (including how existing fences would be enforced if ownership remains unclear), President Rick Swig moved to grant the appeal.

The motion passed unanimously (Vice President Jose Lopez, Commissioner John Trezvina, Commissioner Lundberg, Commissioner JR Eppler, and President Swig all voted "Aye"). The board asked staff to prepare a draft letter to District 9’s supervisor seeking coordination on next steps — including mediation or other city engagement to resolve ownership, public‑access, and stewardship questions — and to place that letter on a future agenda for formal approval.

What happens next is unresolved: the board’s action voids the permit as improperly issued but does not itself resolve who holds title or prescriptive use rights over Parcel 36A. Planning and DBI staff said those determinations rest with the assessor’s office and potentially civil court proceedings. The board’s action removes DBI’s permit as issued; parties will need to pursue private agreements or court resolution to settle ownership, access terms, or subsequent lawful permitting.

The board’s vote and the request for supervisor engagement are the most recent procedural steps; community organizers said they will press for a public solution such as securing the parcel as a greenway, and the permit holder said it may pursue legitimate avenues to seek access and legal protection for loading operations.