Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighbor Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals Upholds Permit for 238 Presidio Avenue, Denies Neighbor Conditions
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal from neighbors of 238 Presidio Ave seeking four permit conditions (light well enlargement, deck setback/protrusion restrictions, acoustic insulation, and fence correction) and upheld the Planning Department’s-approved alteration permit as code‑compliant.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 5 denied an appeal from neighbors of 238 Presidio Avenue and upheld the Department of Building Inspection and Planning Department’s approval of an alteration permit.
Lonnie Way, architect for appellants Clement and Angel Ogden, asked the board to impose four site‑specific conditions to protect light and privacy: enlarge a light well, prohibit protrusions at a second‑floor deck within the three‑foot setback, require acoustic insulation between properties, and require replacement of the fence along the northern property line after a survey indicated an encroachment. Angel Ogden told the board she has lived at the adjacent house for 42 years and said the proposed project would substantially increase the sponsor’s house size and reduce light and privacy.
Counsel for the permit holders, Craig Nikitas, and Planning staff said the project conforms to the residential design guidelines and had received unanimous Planning Commission approval. Nikitas told the board the light well as proposed “meets the residential design guidelines,” that code and Planning review require the railing setback, and that the fence is not part of the permit and is typically a civil property‑line matter.
DBI Senior Building Inspector Joe Duffy told commissioners he saw no “alarm” in the building code aspects of the permit and noted vents and other terminations must be set back from property lines.
After questioning and brief public comment from a neighbor who said he had not seen pre‑construction stakes, commissioners concluded there were not “extraordinary circumstances” warranting additional conditions beyond code requirements. Commissioner Fung moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis the work is code‑compliant; the motion carried with the President recused and the remaining four commissioners voting aye.
The board’s decision means the permit will stand as issued; the appellants may pursue civil remedies on property‑line disputes outside this hearing if they choose.
