Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board affirms Public Works denial of driveway encroachment at 1230 Mason Street
Loading...
Summary
The supervisors affirmed the Department of Public Works' decision denying a minor sidewalk encroachment permit to construct a ramped driveway and two planter boxes at 1230 Mason Street, citing lack of a block pattern of encroachments and questions about petition validity.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Aug. 8 affirmed the Department of Public Works' denial of a minor sidewalk-encroachment permit for 1230 Mason Street, rejecting an appeal from the property owner who had sought a ramped driveway and two planter boxes that would extend 3 feet 6 inches into the public right-of-way.
DPW staff said the block lacked a pattern of encroachments; the department had notified nearby property owners and convened a departmental hearing on Feb. 22, 2006. The hearing officer questioned whether petition signatures submitted by the applicant had been informed about the scope of the requested work, particularly that the petition did not mention a driveway cut and ramp. DPW staff said they followed up with signatories by letter and one signer retracted support upon learning of the ramp.
Appellant's case and staff findings: The applicant told the board the block has other curbside encroachments in surrounding blocks and that he had collected neighborhood signatures supporting the planter boxes and the six spaces of off-street parking the driveway would produce. DPW staff noted the petition language read only that planter boxes would "give beauty to our neighborhood" and that it promised the garage "will ease the parking problem," without describing the ramping/sidewalk cut. The hearing officer recommended denial because the presentation of the proposal to neighbors was unclear.
Board action: Supervisor McGoldrick moved to affirm DPW's denial; the motion was seconded by Supervisor Maxwell. After a roll-call vote, the board affirmed the department's decision by a vote of 7 ayes and 3 noes. Several supervisors voiced sympathy for the applicant's efforts to provide off-street parking but cited public-right-of-way preservation and the lack of an established pattern of similar encroachments on the block in support of DPW's denial.
Ending: The denial stands; the applicant may pursue other avenues consistent with DPW guidelines and public-right-of-way rules. The board's decision emphasized the department's responsibility to verify petition validity and to keep curbside access and sidewalks consistent across block faces.
