Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies jurisdiction request over disputed Geary Boulevard parking permit
Summary
The board rejected a jurisdiction request from 5 Stars Investment LLC, finding the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the appellant to be late in appealing a June 2019 permit to legalize two rear-yard parking spaces at 3340 Geary Boulevard; planning and building staff flagged plan quality and potential unpermitted structures, and staff said suspension and plan correction are available routes.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 13 denied a jurisdiction request from 5 Stars Investment LLC that sought to block a permit allowing two parking spaces at the rear of 3340 Geary Boulevard.
Patrick Connolly, attorney for 5 Stars Investment LLC, told the board the permit application for the adjacent property showed use of his client's driveway and property was necessary but that no owner consent or easement had been obtained or requested by city staff. "There is no letter in the city's files," Connolly said, arguing that lack of such documentation explains why his client did not learn of the permit and was late filing its appeal.
Counsel for the permit holder, Justin Zuger, responded that the question before the board is narrow: whether the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the appellant to be late. He said neighborhood notice under Planning Code Section 3.11 was not required for this permit and that the record does not show the city caused any delay.
Planning Department staff acknowledged plan‑quality issues and told the board the scope — legalization of two existing parking spaces — did not trigger neighborhood notice. Scott Sanchez said the department would recommend suspension of the permit to correct drawings or to address an apparent unpermitted rear structure if needed. Department of Building Inspection Senior Inspector Joe Duffy also flagged poor plan delineation of property lines and said inclusion of recorded easement information on drawings is helpful though not always required.
Commissioners pressed both sides about whether notice was legally required when a permit relies on access across a neighbor's property. After discussion, Commissioner Swig moved to deny the jurisdiction request on the ground that the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the appellant to be late. The motion was approved by voice vote; commissioners Santacana, President Lazarus and Vice President Honda recorded Aye and the motion carried 4–0.
The board did not vacate or suspend the permit in that vote; staff said separate administrative paths exist to seek suspension or corrections through the zoning administrator and DBI if plan flaws or unpermitted structures are confirmed.
What happens next: Planning staff and DBI may pursue permit suspension or request corrected drawings; the parties may pursue civil remedies over easements in court.
