Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds curb‑cut permit at 551 Alvarado, denying neighbor’s appeal
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a neighbor’s appeal challenging a driveway curb cut that the appellant says removes two on‑street parking spaces; the board found the issue arose during earlier planning review and changing the permit now would impose significant hardship on the permit holder.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 9 denied an appeal by a neighbor who objected to a curb‑cut and driveway permit for 551 Alvarado Street, finding the technical curb‑cut permit before the board was properly issued and that parking‑allocation concerns should have been raised during the earlier planning review.
Neighbor Catherine Woods told the board the straight curb cut proposed would remove two on‑street parking spaces in an already tight block and said a slight offset or angled driveway would preserve at least one compact space. "My objection is to the effect of removal of 2 parking spots from the street," Woods said, noting roughly 18 existing nearby units lack off‑street parking and the project would increase that to 19.
Permit holder Randy LaRoche and engineer Jim Toby (Lee & Braze Engineering) said the curb cut was sited and engineered to align safely with the planned garage and that an angled approach would create unsafe vehicle movements given the property’s horizontal and vertical geometry. "This is by far the best and safest solution: a straight on design," Toby said, describing AutoTurn simulations used to model vehicle turning paths.
Planning staff and Public Works described agency roles: planning reviewed and approved the building and placement of the garage during the project’s planning review, while Public Works reviews the technical aspects of curb‑cut construction (wings, slopes, utilities). That division left the board to consider the technical DPW permit before it, not to reopen earlier planning judgments. Several commissioners said the dispute should have been raised during the planning notice period. Commissioner J. R. Epler noted that changing the curb cut now would impose significant architectural and financial burdens on the permit holders.
Outcome: The board voted 3‑0 to deny the appeal and uphold the curb‑cut permit. Commissioners cited the procedural history (planning review and notice) and the disproportionate impact of late changes on the permit holder as reasons for denial.
Next steps: The permit remains in place as issued; any technical concerns about curb‑cut construction are subject to DPW inspection and standard permit conditions.
