tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 4, 2018 2:00am-3:01am PST
so we're back here today, and my last sentence on that is in the information that they sent us, where the reuben junius team talks about special restriction, they say this: we strongly oppose this. an nsr is unnecessary as any conditions of approval deemed necessary by the board will be enforceable by the board's decision. the maos have done everything possible to comply with the requirements and to accommodate the neighbors. i don't feel like we've been accommodated, and we need your help, so thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> and mr. teague? >> good evening again, president honda, commissioners. cory teague, planning department staff.
just briefly, did get a chance to look over the proposed plans by the permit holder just to see if they would be consistent with the ceqa analysis that was conducted for the site and consistent with current planning code requirements, and the proposed revision would be consistent with both. the only thing i would point out is that generally, if a project had already been noticed and comes back and proposes to raise the height by a couple of feet, it would trigger renotice. in this case, obviously, all of the people that have received notice and are engaged are verien gauged in this process. the rest of the revisions are just at the discretion of the board. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> mr. teague, what was the -- what is the max height they can go in comparison to where we're at now? >> so i think -- well, as was mentioned during the permit holder's presentation, the height district here -- it's a
40 foot height district, but because it's rh-1 dd, you take a 45 angle from either the front property line or the front set back line, and that can go up to 35 feet, and then, it basically follows grade from there. if it's an uphill or if it's a flat property, it just follows a straight line there. so you know, towards the middle of the lot, the max height generally is 35 feet, so they have somely way there. the front corner is basically meeting as proposed now in front of you is meeting that kind of 45° angle that's required. >> in studying it, the permit holder had mentioned that the height of the building is still lower than their immediate neighbors. >> mm-hmm. >> is that correct 1234. >> i'd have to look at the plans to look at that. i'm not positive.
>> do you have a cold? i caught it. no shaking hands you with or anything. >> any comment, mr. duffy? >> any public comment? seeing none, the matter's submitted skbl madam secretary, do you have a record of what my motion was -- >> madam director. >> it clearly wasn't resolved, but can you read my motion? >> sure. so i think that's the november 8th motion which was. >> yeah. >> let's see...to grant the appeal -- to grant the four appeals and issue the site permit on the condition that the penthouse and roof deck be removed on the basis that these features are out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. and on that motion of president honda, commissioner lazarus and commissioner wilson dissented, which is why it didn't pass. >> my -- my thoughts on this is
that -- that there was a -- originally a glass enclosed penthouse that was -- that we -- it was described as a beam of light that would intrude on the neighbors and change the character of the neighborhood, and i think that's what we reacted to. i'm going to put aside for the moment the new -- the new plans because we haven't had a chance to really study them, but i -- let's stay focused on -- i want to say focus on what we -- what i had an issue with. obviously, in my motion, i heard from all the commissioners who did, as well. so i -- i would be prepared to do the same motion, but a deck. i'd like some help with the
size of it, but with some special restrictions that relate to no, i guess, combustible materials -- example, a fire pit or a barbecue or cooking option, no storage unit or other permanent structure. no lighting of any kind unless required for emergency purposes by planning or the building department, and so that's -- that's kind of the direction i -- i would go. and i -- a rail around the -- the deck -- a glass rail around the deck, which is to -- at a minimum height, which is -- which would be according to the building department rules. that's the direction i would like to go, and i think
that's -- you know, that's fair. give them the house that they want minus the top basically, but give them a deck with some special features. >> well, i think the last time they were before us, the understanding -- which was a little confusing, because the thought process i thought going forward was they were just talking specifically in regards to the deck. and then, here we are, a couple weeks later, and it's not just the deck, but they've added some more bulk to the building. i don't necessarily have a problem with the floor plates increasing per se, and we originally had talked, i think it was 490 or 487 square feet. it was less than 500. but the lack of communication kind of concerns me, that if the permit holder had adequate time to draw these plans up and put them together but did not
want to share them until the day before, to me, is a little concerning, you know? >> well, i feel like opportunity was fully taken advantage of and was beyond what we expected to see back here. so i think i'm inclines in the direction that commissioner swig is headed. i'm not sure if the nsr portion is needed. i mean, maybe mr. teague and/or mr. duffy cann enlightn us, but i support a motion that essentially addresses the deck and not the rest of it. >> let's break that down a little bit further, in terms of detail. when they limited it -- the penthouse, the previous scheme had the roof of the third floor
depressed so that the height of that penthouse was not as great -- it was 4 feet or something. >> i can't remember. >> it was prointruditruding up >> it was protruding some amount, but it had been dropped, and the curb framing is dropped straight across. i have no issue with that. if you get rid of penthouse. the question then is where the -- the height was picked up, and whether there's an issue. i'm sensing that a couple of the commissioners here have an issue with the increased height of the lower floors. i'm not sure i shared that so much. the question, also, then, is roof decks. i didn't want to say too much, but you recall that two of the
commissioners killed the first motion, which deleted any roof decks and required that it be put back into the motion and allowed it. so i'd like to get further clarification from the two who added it back, what is it about this that you don't like? i don't see much difference between this deck and many other decks that we have seen. >> i expected a basic roof top or roof deck with some railings around it, no accoutrementes. i don't know what this 14 foot storage bin is. to me, it's having access to a roof if they intend to use it. i don't understand the argument about raising the ceiling on the lower floor i think had to do with access to rooms that
there wouldn't be stairs, and i don't know why that wouldn't be addressed before. that has nothing to do with what went on on top, i don't believe. >> no, i think what occurred is in their efforts to try to procedu portray the overall bulk of the building, they reduced it. the inches out of the floor, they pressed the penthouse downward in order to show a product that was of lesser height. >> so basically because they sacrificed the penthouse, they're getting some of that floor space back? >> yeah. >> which i reiterate, i don't have a problem with the added floor height, but as several of the parties from the public have mentioned, because there was a switch in plans and the lack of communication and evidently they have hired guns, i do think that a special deed of restrictions is probably going to be required on this so
that we don't have to deal with things popping up in plans and having repermitting issues. >> so my issue is not with the building, my issue is with what happens on top of the building. so if the -- if the -- if the revised plan or the revised bulk -- i'm not going to fight on that, but i -- i really think that it -- we should mandate with clarity the size of the deck, which i would do not to exceed 500 feet. that we should also be very clear that as commissioner lazarus said, it is a plain deck and -- with -- >> but let's talk about the -- >> typical railings. >> -- about the specific items, then. >> okay. >> you have a deck that's under 500 feet. >> fine. >> it's transparent, so it
doesn't necessarily block views, but it provides views of whoever's up there. the question is where is this storage unit? the second is the fire pit. >> and the light. the light, i think, is a very important issue that i heard the first time around was that beacon. i think the first word was beacon, so if we were allow it to be lit, we defeat that whole issue. we defeat that whole thing. >> you're correct. it doesn't show what is proposed. you can condition it so that you provide the minimum illumination that's necessary for ingress and egress, all right? >> and also -- >> that would be similar to what would be a code requirement for the, say, on-site walkways and things. >> okay. so would we address that in -- in just language or in the nsr? >> can we ask mr. teague, can
you help us. >> no -- and then, also, like i said, i would like to make sure there's no permanent structures that are past the top floor. >> so if i understand it correctly, it's just a little guidance on the potential nsr and how that would work. so i think a good way to think about it is obviously if you review the permit, you have the authority to basically amend the scope of work for this permit. you could -- you've already decided to do that by removing the fourth floor penthouse, but whatever you finalized in that decision would basically be the final scope of work that's approved for this permit. any subsequent permit that would meet the planning code and the building code and all other requirements could be approved in the future. nsr is a notice of special restrictions that would be reported on the property to document any specification conditions of approval put on,
and i was thinking about what conditions kind of long-term do you want, not necessarily just limiting the scope of work for that permit, but what additional conditions you want to apply to that, whether that be no this or no that or no more than this or no more than that. if you wanted to apply those types of conditions of approval in perpetuity that just go beyond this permit, that's the kind of thing that would be used to report the conditions of approval. that's what we do at the planning department. if you have an entitlement those conditions are recorded on the property as a condition of approval. the zoning administrator has the authority to put those kind of conditions on a building permit, as well as any kind of entitlement, and again, those conditions can run in perpetuity in addition to the permit. >> and barring that, and if
they come back and want to get a permit to do something else, then, that's an option for them? >> yes. >> it could end up being an over the counter type permit? >> it could be, depending on what they're proposing to do, so that's something to take into consideration. obviously, the plans show the fire pit and the storage, you know. this is not above the height limit, so our height exemptions don't really come into play, but a lot of times, they do for roof decks. there's a lot of things that are generally permitted on roof decks, whether it's furniture, tables and chairs, other types of outdoor furniture that'll be utilized to use the deck. obviously, it's not uncommon to see those types of features, and they don't require a building permit just to put up outdoor furniture. anything that would be a structure or railing or things
of that nature would generally require a building permit. >> so i think the -- i'm seeking your advice. so one of the concerns of neighbors was the light at night, creating a beacon effect on that square footage, which would be transparent to the neighborhood. so that, to me, would be anything that would create light, which would generally mean that if you -- if you -- a restriction on illumination. the other piece, i think, was the restriction of an activity such as cooking or -- or an activity that would require a -- something like a fire pit, and basically want to get back to a deck that if you have a chair up there, you can sit in the lovely fog of sea cliff in
which i grew up. we have global warming, so there's more warm days, i guess. but that's where -- that's where i -- i see taking this. >> yeah. >> of -- and based on the neighbors comments and concerns. >> sure. i mean, i think that the lighting issue is obviously two different contexts. the prior proposal was a complete glassed in room that was going to have a very different type of lighting that was enough to illuminate the entire room which would create a different lighting effect from afar. >> but another thing, it was the type of glazing. >> drawback glazing and the kind of lighting that would be in there, where it would be mounted. obviously, it has to be a very different context. my colleagues from dbi can speak to the absence of real lighting on a roof deck. there's no real clear guidance to set it to. but if you feel there are certain requirements pertaining
to the height of potential light fixtures or some other metric on limiting the light, that's within your purview. similar ly, prohibiting fire pits or any other barbecues or facilities like that, that would be within your purview, as well. i mean, obviously, things -- whether it comes to furniture, that gets a little more challenging. a lot of outdoor furniture has a lot of storage components to it. it may not be different for storage cabinets themselves, but depend, we don't normally require permits for outdoor furniture. and i'm sorry, after the lighting, you were speaking about the cooking facilities. okay. we addressed that. >> pretty much. so we could actually limit it to no light. >> i don't think so. >> i don't think so. >> you have a stair there. you're going to have to provide light. >> yeah, i would prefer. >> do you have x-ray vision there? >> i can say there's no
requirement in the planning code for lighting on decks. i would defer to mr. duffy if there are any such requirements in the building code. >> no lighting except that mandated by the building department. >> and i don't know if there's any in the building code, so i would defer to mr. duffy. >> okay. thanks. >> he looks very pained. good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, dba. that type of lighting wouldn't come into plan a single-family home, like emergency lighting like you see on a high-rise building. but if they have a roof hatch up there to that, you're going to need lighting to get off of that, so it's more of a common sense approach. we do see track lighting in the floorings of decks. now, there would be a light requirement inside the stern in the lower area, so it's really -- there isn't a code provision, i wouldn't think, as much as your common sense sense code. >> well, there's some general comments in the code that talks about that. >> yeah, but no emergency lighting.
there's no such thing as that in a single-family home. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for your illumination. >> oh, you're so -- >> i'm so -- >> okay. >> we have two issues. one deals with the height of the building, and the other, how far you want to strip the deck down. >> i'm fine with the height. >> i'll live with that. >> yep. >> okay. >> they lost the pen how tthou. i'm not fond of decks, as everybody here knows. >> no. >> but you have to allow normal usage. >> so do we allow a barbecue pit? maybe a freestanding barbecue? okay. i see the fire pit's a no thing. what about the permanent structure in regards to the storage, the 15 feet by
36 inches? is that a no? >> i'm not supportive. >> i'm not supportive. >> okay. so that's a no. so what are -- let's go the other way. what are we actually going to allow on the deck? >> no lighting. >> well, we have to have some lighting. we established that already. minimal requirements as peregress perthe city and code. yeah, thank you, you're welcome. so -- >> no gas service yutensils. >> okay. so no permanently affixed gas to the property. >> how about heaters, because it gets cold? >> then, that -- there -- you know, that's where we -- >> that's the thing.
well, he can use the temporary five gallon ones that he can just fill. unless we're going to be here all night. >> anything that's portable. how do you want to phrase it? >> i don't know. >> just think about enforcement, please. >> mr. teague, you look eager to jump up here. >> joe, you, too. you guys can come together. >> i don't want to speak any more than i have to, but just wanted to say that in your discussions, which things about wanting to prohibit or permit when it comes to open flames or cooking facilities is just what are you trying to prevent? is it light, which the fire pit would create a light source? is it danger from fire and cooking? is it gathering around cooking and serving food? and if it's more of that, you maybe want to be more comprehensive in just no cooking facilities, be it in that area or not.
just whatever you're trying to prevent that would kind of help guide what you prohibit. >> so no cooking facilities, no permanent storage facilities, and no permanent lighting except that required by any safety provisions. >> and no four story, going future, perpetuity. >> nsr? >> yeah. >> is that a motion? >> yeah, i guess it's my motion from before, with the modification that the -- that the new building height, with the exception of the -- how do we get the -- how do we get the new building proposal in there? >> isn't a permit on revised --
>> well, we have the revised plans, which you're asking to be modified to eliminate this lighting, cooking, storage that you just discussed. >> so it's the motion -- motion from before with the opportunity to move -- grant the permit based on the revised plans, with the exception -- >> with the restriction. >> with restrictions to a limit of no more than a 500 square foot deck and -- and restrictions with regard to no cooking, no permanent structures, and no permanent lighting with the exception of that required for safety purposes. >> we need to say no cooking? i just want to be clear. >> i -- i'm okay with that, but
you know what -- if that's -- >> that's what mr. teague suggested, so -- >> and -- and no fire pit, which would go along with lighting. >> and just to be specific, no additional fourth level. >> okay. so the motion -- the motion from commissioner swig -- >> excuse me. mr. duffy would like to speak. >> welcome back, joe. >> sorry commissioners. just when the word permanent structures, i think fixed would probably be better than permanent, because people do bring things up there that are movable, but fixed and permanent would be better if that's okay. >> i would accept mr. duffy's friendly -- >> well, i need some clarification because i don't understand, then, if that means someone can bring a fire pit -- a portable fire pit with a
propane tank. that is not fixed. it's just plopped down and taken away or if they can't. >> so like i said, no fire pit, no cooking. >> and weber -- okay. so a heater, they can bring out if they want, that's not fixed. i am raising this because it's going to become an issue with the neighbors. >> no, then no -- then no barbecue on the roof, really? really, you're not going to let -- this is what we're trying to protect. >> yeah, i think no fixed is fine. >> no fixed. >> okay. >> and that would include any gas utensil, i guess. is that better terminology, including a fire pit or cooking. >> or no permanent gas supply. >> fixed. >> no permanent gas supply to fourth level. >> i think the propane tanks in the area was okay, then? >> yeah.
>> okay. okay. so the motion, then, from commissioner swig is to grant these four appeals, issue the site permit on the condition the penthouse be removed, that there be allowed a deck no more than 500 square feet with transparent railings, and did you want an nsr? is that part of your motion? okay. and that there be an nsr recorded to document that no fixed lighting is allowed except for what's required by code. no cooking facilities, and no fire pit be allowed. no permanent structures, and that there be no fourth story is what you said, as well. >> how are we ever going to replace you? >> with the adoption of these revised plans, but these plans also need to be revised further to reflect -- >> reflect.
>> the decision. >> the requirements just imposed. and previously, you said this was on the basis that these features that you're removing or the restrictions are out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. is that the same -- >> true. >> okay. okay. on that basis, then, and on that motion, vice president. >> vice president fung: fung aye. >> >> commissioner lazarus: aye. >> president honda: aye aye. >> commissioner wilson: >> no. >> okay. the motion passes with a vote of 4-1. item number 8 is a rehearing request, the subject property of 259 avila treat, the appellant, patrick mulligan is requesting a rehearing. we decided november 15, 2017, at that time the board voted
5-0 to deny the appeal at that time that the permit was properly issued. mr. mulligan, you have three minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon -- or good evening, president honda and commissioners. everybody now agrees that the one update from my presentation before -- everybody agrees that the house was rented in 1992 to '93. i have a couple of questions that you might think about. what is the -- >> i'm sorry. i can't hear you. >> could you raise the mic, sir. >> raise it? >> yeah. you're kind of a tall guy. >> what is the legal basis that planning sites requiring evidence, that actual physical residency is the sole determining factor for occupancy in san francisco. my second question is about the permit holder install the bathroom and shower, etcetera after they bought the building
in 1993? the whole structure at 259 avila was rented in 1992-93 era. there by, the san francisco rent stablization statutes govern, merging the current illegal inlaw unit under the current permit eliminates an affordable unit, a rental stock of san francisco. the basement garage and residency aspects are all considered under rent control. likely, the in-law was established in 1993 when tenant k moved out and before the permit holder moved in. the property owner, terry cook, leased the rental to miss kay and sold the property to current owner. miss cook's son has had his own construction company at that time for 25 -- for 27 years before he became a winery owner. it makes sense that any property owner would enhance their property in every way, especially as it likely suffered some damage from loma
prieta in 1989 before putting it up for sale in '93. it doesn't matter when the unit was established, either before the rental or after, because it exists today as an affordable unit of housing and there by requires that 311-312 notice for its removal. this means that the permit was not issued correctly, and we'd respectfully ask for a rehearing. in regard to the permit holder's point that the costas hawkins renders that mute, may i say it doesn't address any local rent control rules passed before 1996. frankly, it's not eliminating limits on single-family rent. the local regulations defines a unit and does not specify any occupied unit. it does not say that anything
or anybody needs to occupy the space. -- all gomped by the san francisco rent control act, with no residential occupancy requirement. hundreds of whom are currently constructed in san francisco, see the chronic will on monday. i have a copy if you want to see it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holders. >> welcome back. >> hi. president honda, board of appeals commissioners. my name is alfonso. the permit holders respectfully request that the board deny the rehearing request regarding the approved site permit issued for 259 avila for the following reasons, and these address the issues raised in the appellant's brief. the appellant claims that the planning department staff was negligent in their determination that no rental unit would be lost during the proposed remodelling project.
we contend that the review performed by planning that the appellant described in his brief is consistent with the standard of due dill dense on all projects reviewed by the department and therefore no due diligence. the appellant claims that because a miss patricia kay rented a room at this property, that a second unit exists. she stated myself and my husband along with our son lived in the entire home with no in-law unit. the owners at 259 avila street contacted miss kay and spoke to her by phone. miss kay confirmed she rents the entire residence are no additional tenants. this is confirmed in the attached e-mail which states, in the fall of 1 # 92, my son, husband and i rented the residence at 259 from teresa cook. my memory of the down stairs is
it was a large room which we used for our tv and toy room for our son. the appellant claims the rental of the property by miss kay proves that there was a second unit on the property. the appellant's submitted excerpt from that ordinance said -- and is not exempt from the ordinance unless both units are rented together as a single tenancy. as stated previously, miss kay has confirmed that she and her family had rented the entire house at 259 avila street, and therefore, the ordinance does not apply. as discussed in the previous hearing, the owner had signed an affidavit asserting that their family has been the sole occupant of the residence since they purchased the property. the neighbors have also signed letters stating the owners have also been the only occupants of the property since 1993, and these are attached as exhibits 3 and 4. in conclusion, the there are no
extraordinary circumstances in the case, there is no evidence that any portion of the home was separately rented as an independent residence, and there has been no documentation provided by the appellant that proves that a secondary tenant ever existed. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. teague? >> good evening again, president honda, commissioners. cory teague for planning department staff. yeah, the only new piece of information that's provided here is the same argument that was provided in the original appeal, that there was, in fact, a second unauthorized dwelling unit in the building. as such, the removal of that unit should trigger a conditional use authorization. as we discussed before, actually, the dr hearing at the planning commission was continued, i believe, for one or two weeks to give the planning department time to research that further.
they did, and determined that there was no evidence of any unauthorized dwelling unit. the typical procedure we go through there to determine if there are any documentation in the public record related to the space having being used as a separate living space is we look through our files, case files, we look through building permits that have been issued. we do an eviction history request with the rent board to see if they have any documentation related to a second unit at the site. we also just do a basic internet search, as well. all of that was conducted here. the rent board are no evidence of any eviction history in an unauthorized unit or a second unit of any type at this site. we had no other documentation to indicate that the -- that the space in question had been used as an independent unit. and as was mentioned, the appellant made the case about a
specific prior tenant, and that prior tenant made clear in her e-mail communications that her family rented out the entire single-family home, and that the space in question during the time was never used as an unauthorized dwelling unit, so with that considered, i would ask that you not grant the rehearing request. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> anything, inspector duffy. okay. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> i think this falls short. it doesn't reach the bar for a rehearing, as far as i'm concerned, and there was no manifest injust. >> i would agree. >> that would be my motion, madam director. >> okay. thank you. president honda's motion to deny the request. on that, commissi.
>> vice president fung: aye. >> commissioner swig: aye. >> president honda: aye. >> commissioner wilson: aye aye. >> this was item 8, the property's at 21 brompton, appealing a letter issued on december 1st, 2017 regarding whether the subject lot at the subject property currently being used for work could be considered a single nonconforming use, and it could be paved with a surface parking lot. >> other geng and welcome. you have seven minutes. >> good evening. my name is patricia hayes, and i'm here with my mother, brothers dan, sisters geralyn
and joanne. as you've read in the background materials, this property has been in our family for over 43 years. last december 16, our mom with our family support purchased a 50% interest from our business partner mr. bernie kelly, which included the 21 brompton parking lot. it's important for us to keep the property. we're san francisco tied family. however, we were immediately concerned about the parking lot and the need for us to address it's status once we became the sole owners. we he were mindful that the lot is an unsecured, unlit and unwanted liability. we also know how vital the parking is to the glen park
community, as an interim use. we wish to pursue its interim use because we know it's zoned in ct and rh 2, and our long-term goal is to develop as a residential next use. if our intention was to pursue permanent parking, we would be pursuing a change in the zoning, we reasoned that in the short-term, we could develop a paid parking lot which could improve the property with paved parking, landscaping, lighting, and safety. it will generate income which will hasten our long-term development plans, providing a good out come for the city, visitors, residents, and tenants. this led to our request for a letter of determination to the zoning administrator. mr. sanchez acknowledged its use as parking since the early 70's, but he did not find it to be a legal nonconforming public
parking use. we believe that the record shows very clearly that the existing parking use is a legal nonconforming use. the city is on record since 1971 prior to the hayes's use of nonconforming parking, it has continued for 46 years as such. in recent years, city planning documents eventually dropped the term unauthorized parking and grandfathered to parking. the 2012 board of supervisors adopted glen park community development plan and the environmental lot refer to our lot as parking, stating if the parking lot along kern is ever developed, parking plans in the area include a gravel parking lot, and if you ask most people that have parked on our property, they believe it's free public parking. furthermore, the city has never taken steps to prohibit the well known use of parking at 21
brompton, so we request that the board of appeals allow the continued use of 21 brompton as a parking lot, albeit a paid parking lot. as we stated, we would like to develop the property sooner. the alternative will be to fence off the lot as is, we will eliminate parking, and traffic in the area is already very grim, and it will create more double and triple marking in an already grid locked area. it will delay long-term development for an unspecified number of years. alternatively, approval to proceed will provide he aesthetices, status quo and development with a long time family. we hope you will concur that 21 brompton has operated in a legal nonconforming parking lot in direct planning as soon as possible to allow our family to
proceed with a paid public parking lot. we truly believe this is a good solution for glen park. we are together as a family in our goals. we have an existing good working relationship with the planning team, good relationships with the glen park community, and an open collaborative mindset to create thoughtful long and short-term development plans for 21 brompton, and we thank you very much for your time and consideration, and we hope you agree. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. mr. teague. >> thank you again, president honda and commissioners. cory teague, planning department staff. so on august 21st of this year, they submitted a letter as to whether the property at 21 brompton avenue could continue
the use as a parking lot current property is split zoned with a smaller portion to the east towards diamond street, being zoned glen park nct neighborhood commercial transit district, and the majority of the parcel to the west that fronts on brompton being zoned rh 2. but the subject property originally consisted of several adjacent properties that were zoned r 2 and contained two single-family houses. those properties were purchased by the city, and the single-family homes were demolished or removed. the city vebl
in making his determination, the zone being administrator searched for any authorization during that time to establish the parking lot as a legal use of the property, but no such documentation was found. instead, as noted in the issued letter, the r 2 zoning at the time did not permit public parking lots, and the 1971 general plan referral required for the city to sell the property specified that the current use of the property at that time was unauthorized parking. as was mentioned, there's no dispute that the property has been used as various types of parking lots since that time however with these facts in hand, the zoning administrator could not determine that the property was a legal nonconforming use and had been established at in point in the past. in his letter, he clarified that a paid parking lot is considered an open use as considered by the planning code. it's otherwise not permitted in the rh 2 zoning district.
additionally, other requirements regarding trees, landscaping and screening would apply, and if were not met, would require application for a new parking lot. it's important to note, that the purpose of this was only to document the actual existing uses on the site at that time, and those documents did not evaluator otherwise confer the legality of any use at that time. finally, the appellant also requests in the brief the allowance to use the site only temporarily as a public parking lot until some future time when the property can be developed. however, the planning code has very limited provisions for certain temporary uses, and they do not allow any provisions to allow a temporary public parking lot anywhere in the city. so to conclude, the issue letter of determinationed not dispute that the initial parking lot has operated in
some form or another since the early 1970's. however, just based on the facts that were available, the zoning administrator felt econot find that the existing parking lot was a legal nonconforming use. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> so with -- i have no problem with the the -- the continuances of the public parking lot, and it could be a -- a parking lot as the -- as the appellant stated. what concerns me, i look a little further down the line. temporary is an ambiguous word. temporary could be six weeks, six years, or 20 years. and then, the appellants -- appellant wants to develop the property. and i -- i see us or our future
peers sitting here having a conversation with the neighborhood -- somebody in the neighborhood appeals the dismemberment of a parking lot for the purpose of -- of building that -- that future structure. that's the thing that bugs me the most. that's -- that's where i see the biggest problem. >> and just to clarify further, you know, the letter didn't address the potential temporary use or the future development of the property, really. it really just looked at the question of is the existing parking lot, can it basically continue as a legal nonconforming parking lot. some of the other information about its temporary use, future development provide context for the request, but the letter itself didn't address those specific issues. >> i think the appellants are asking for five years. >> yeah. >> so -- so i recognize that the letter doesn't address
that, but i would like you to give me some thoughts on that. if the five years passes by, if there's a shortage of parking in the neighborhood due to traffic, and then, the appellant files for a -- a site permit for a -- the new development how do you unwind -- unwind that legally? >> sure. well, luckily, i think the temporary aspect of any request is not really going to be able to be addressed through any decision here because the question really is is the existing parking lot a legal nonconforming use? if the ultimate decision is yes, then that's its legal use,
and it can stay that way in perpetuity. it's the legal decision that that's t that's the use of the site. if the other determination is not held, and that's not the -- it's not the legal use of the site, there's no provision under the code to grant a temporary authorization for the parking lot, so the temporary aspect doesn't really play into this specific decision here because both out comes convey a certain type of permanent to the parking lot. >> yeah, i think you're honing in -- i'd like the appellant to hear this and the family to hear this so they don't set themselves up for -- we don't grant them something that they want, and then, they find five years later that they got themselves into a -- an even
bigger deal where the community can come back and appeal a site permit for what they wanted to do in the first place, which was build a structure, and then, they're turned down, and then, they really have a permanent parking lot. >> correct. so if it's determined here today that the letter of determination was issued in error, and that it actually is a legal parking lot, then yeah, moving forward, they'll have to deal with whatever issues they may face with developing it, either the current property owner are or any future property owners. >> thank you, mr. teague. >> i don't know if you were here, but there was a temporary use on a major site downtown. >> a major what? i'm sorry. >> a sign, and it was temporary use. and that's not too far off from this case, whether you guys considered it a cu or something else, because there's
legislation there against signs downtown. >> sure. and signs are treated differently than land uses, so we do have provisions for temporary resigns. article six of the planning code is kind of its own separate beast. section 205, and it's subsections are outside of mission bay are the entirety of what the planning code permits. >> i don't want to get thoo that. i just remember that as a temporary. and perhaps i'm quibbling over the two terms, public, and nonconforming. now if the appellant can demonstrate it was a paid lot at one point in time, that makes it nonconforming. >> so a -- >> a nonconforming use? >> if i can elaborate a little bit here. i mean, any use that does not conform to the current requirements of the planning code for that site is
nonconforming. the question of whether or not that's a violation for nonconforming use or a legal nonconforming use is if that use is ever legally established in the past, so we have lots of situations where rezonings happens across the city or plans change one way or another. you may have gotten a house built in the 1970's, and now, it's legally nonconforming, at the time it was legally authorized, it met the kurpt coded. we have many nonconforming uses. >> i was going to go to that second portion of that. >> and that's why the focus was on trying to find some documentation on such an authorization or permit. >> what was in the r 2 zoning? you're saying it didn't allow parking, but what was in it. >> it's very similar to the rh
2 that we have now, in the sense that it was a low density residential district that required a conditional use authorization for most nonresidential uses, whether they're kind of schools, parking lots, other things like that. i don't have the list, but generally not public commercial. >> no? it wouldn't have allowed it. >> if it did, it was very, very limited. again, the r 2 district is, from a use perspective is very similar to the rh 2 district that we have know. primarily, all the use permits require general use authorization, although some types of parking lots are permitted. a public parking lot, which is open to public, you pay to park, that's the definition of kind of a retail use, that's not permitted at all in rh 2. a private parking lot. >> understood. >> is permitted with a
conditional use in rh 2, but that's exactly what's not been proposed. >> are you through, commissioner? >> yeah. >> so i've got a question. maybe not on this particular property, but in general, following up with commissioner swig. so say someone does have a parking lot. we don't want parking lots in san francisco, and so they're going for entitlements, permits, and plans, so on a lot like that, how long does it take to go through the planning department. >> there's a question if someone wanted to develop this site -- >> so if someone has a nonconforming parking lot that they're trying to build a strungture on, generally, how long would that take to go through the bidding. >> the nonconforming context of that scenario should not have any impact on the review time. there's nothing -- the planning code generally is designed -- >> so four years? four years? >> that's a challenging
questions. it depends on the required environmental review. >> and so understanding that there is no temporary parking situation, but given the fact that we know that the planning department and the building department are very challenging in the city, and your permits can take anywhere from two years to five years, current commissioner speaking, as well, right? so that situation, since we have a lot there, wouldn't it make sense to create some type of legislation allowing developers that are in process, that are paying all these fees to go forward for entitlements, to have a specific use for the land rather than having it set there and having to maintain an empty lot. >> that's an interesting policy proposal. it's not what was under the purview of the letter and not within the authority of what we have available to us now. >> okay. thank you.
>> sure. thank you. >> okay. we can take public comment. supervisor, thank you for your patience. >> thank you for your patience. welcome, supervisor sheehy. i apologize. >> no apology necessary. >> and you're going to have to move that mic way up. >> no apology necessary, and i want to thank all of you for being here tonight. i know a lot of us are -- in fact, i think the whole city is challenged. it's been hard for us the last 24 hours, and thank you for the opportunity to address you. i have my remarks in a letterform. here's the original and a copy. and i'm requesting that the board of appeals exercise its authority to find that a determination of the zoning administrator that the surface parking lot located at 21 brompton avenue is unauthorized is in error and allow the lot
to be developed in the appeal. i know this property well, and its ongoing operation is a benefit to individuals and families who shop or dine in the commercial district or who utilize the san francisco public library's glen park branch. i strongly support the individual development of the property to address our city's housing shortage when the property owner is financially able to do so. we're right across the street from b.a.r.t., and it should not only be developed, but developed with density. there is an interest to improve the lot so that it is safer, better lit, and more aesthetically pleasing to the residents. in fact we're building a grown way that this lot would be the opening to. that work started last saturday. as part of the city's fix it plan for gren park, the city identifies concerns about stray
gravel in the street and inadequate lighting in the area. the quality of life concerns can be addressed with a design plan proposed by the property owner. the property owner filed for conditional use authorization to allow improvements to the lot on february 23rd, 2017. the planning department took months to conclude that the cu could not be allowed. on july 10th, the property owner requested a letter of determination from the zoning administrator, which was issued on september 21st, 2017. this substantial delay is harmful to the local community, which strongly believed the lot should be approved -- improved. various environmental review documents prepared by the planning department as early as 1977 include a specific description of the property as a parking lot. therefore, the zoning administrator could have found that it was a legal nonconforming use. his finding ignores the
property's history and the documents prepared by the planning department itself. in 2012, the planning department and afmta prepared the glen park community plan. in its summary is attached to the documents. the community plan specifically calls for making short-term parking available for businesses in the village. therefore, i request that the board respectfully request that the board find the zoning administrator made an error, in his september 1st, 2017 letter of determination and allow the operation and improvement of the parking lot as contained in exhibit 9 of the appeal. and thank you very much for your consideration of my views, and again, thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you. i do have a question, supervisor. >> sure. >> as a city lejs legislator, currently in the books, there's no temporary designation,
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on