Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Building 5435 Anza topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for 100‑sq‑ft greenhouse accessory building at 5435 Anza Street
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a neighbor appeal to revoke a building permit for a detached 100‑sq‑ft 'garden structure' with a half bath at 5435 Anza Street, finding the permit was properly approved by planning and DBI; vote was 5‑0 to deny the appeal.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 18 denied an appeal by adjacent neighbors who argued a recently issued permit for a 100‑square‑foot accessory building at 5435 Anza Street should be revoked.
Appellant Sandra Rorda told the board the permit application and final plans contained inconsistent descriptions—references alternately to a shed, greenhouse and an accessory dwelling—along with a feature noted in plan text as a bathtub. Rorda said the plans as filed left ambiguity about stories and footprint and worried the small lot’s already limited open space would be further reduced.
Amy Lee, representing property owner Michelle Lee, said the small detached greenhouse is a one‑story, 100‑square‑foot garden structure with a half bath to help elderly family members and that the permit was approved after review by Planning, DBI, DPW, Fire and PUC. Planning staff (Corey Teague) and DBI’s senior inspector (Joe Duffy) told commissioners the project meets the planning code’s garden‑structure size and height limits, that the structure is detached from the main house, and that the application was properly processed.
After questions about whether the permit’s form included inconsistent checkboxes, and confirmation from the project architect (Bill Guo) that the feature in the plan is a toilet/potting area rather than a bathtub, Commissioner Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. The motion passed 5‑0.
The denial leaves the permit in place; the board recorded the vote as an administrative review of the planning and building departments’ determinations and not a policy decision about accessory dwellings.
