Board of Appeals denies neighbor's challenge to vertical addition at 223 Anderson
November 01, 2023 | San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 1 denied an appeal from Mary Jane Galviso of 225 Anderson Street challenging a permit for a one-story vertical addition at 223 Anderson Street.
Galviso told the board she would lose the only north-facing kitchen window that provides most of her natural light, saying the proposed work would be "crushing" and would leave her unable "to see the sky." She argued the addition would change the architectural character of the Bernal Heights block and pointed to photos she said showed the project's disproportionate impact on her home.
Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board the site permit was consistent with the Bernal Heights Special Use District and residential design guidelines. Teague said the project is set back from the property edges, sits within the neighborhood's mass-reduction controls and that the applicant had been notified through the department's public process. Matthew Green of the Department of Building Inspection told commissioners the permit had been routed through the appropriate reviews and complied with the building code.
In rebuttal, Galviso repeated her concerns about the accuracy of images provided by the applicant and about loss of light and sky. The permit holder's representative said the project was intentionally modest, smaller than code would allow, and that outreach to neighbors had been completed.
Vice President Jose Lopez moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit had been properly issued. The full board voted 5-0 to deny Appeal 23-044 and uphold the permit.
What happens next: The permit remains in effect. DBI staff told the board that if field inspections during construction reveal substantial discrepancies between the plans and existing conditions, DBI could issue correction notices and require a revision permit that would be routed to planning and be appealable.
Votes at a glance: The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit passed 5-0 (Lopez, Trezvina, Lemberg, Epler, Swig).
Galviso told the board she would lose the only north-facing kitchen window that provides most of her natural light, saying the proposed work would be "crushing" and would leave her unable "to see the sky." She argued the addition would change the architectural character of the Bernal Heights block and pointed to photos she said showed the project's disproportionate impact on her home.
Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board the site permit was consistent with the Bernal Heights Special Use District and residential design guidelines. Teague said the project is set back from the property edges, sits within the neighborhood's mass-reduction controls and that the applicant had been notified through the department's public process. Matthew Green of the Department of Building Inspection told commissioners the permit had been routed through the appropriate reviews and complied with the building code.
In rebuttal, Galviso repeated her concerns about the accuracy of images provided by the applicant and about loss of light and sky. The permit holder's representative said the project was intentionally modest, smaller than code would allow, and that outreach to neighbors had been completed.
Vice President Jose Lopez moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit had been properly issued. The full board voted 5-0 to deny Appeal 23-044 and uphold the permit.
What happens next: The permit remains in effect. DBI staff told the board that if field inspections during construction reveal substantial discrepancies between the plans and existing conditions, DBI could issue correction notices and require a revision permit that would be routed to planning and be appealable.
Votes at a glance: The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit passed 5-0 (Lopez, Trezvina, Lemberg, Epler, Swig).
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
