Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parking Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds zoning administrator: only one legal parking space at 2 Forester Street

San Francisco Board of Appeals · June 26, 2019
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals denied an appeal by Jeff Matlin and upheld the zoning administrator’s letter of determination that the rear‑yard driveway at 2 Forester Street does not constitute a second legal off‑street parking space; the board found no documentary evidence (easement, permits or Sanborn mapping) establishing a legal nonconforming parking space.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 26 denied Jeff Matlin’s appeal of a zoning administrator letter of determination and upheld the zoning administrator’s finding that his property at 2 Forester Street contains one legal off‑street parking space (in a garage) and that the adjacent driveway area in the required rear yard is not a separate legal parking space.

Matlin, represented by attorney Robia Crisp, argued the surface space behind his garage has been used for parking for decades and should be recognized as a legal nonconforming parking space; he submitted letters from prior owners and neighbors attesting to historic use. The determination holder, neighbor Lillia Scott, testified she had been repeatedly told by planning staff that parking in the required rear yard was not allowed and that she stopped parking there based on that advice.

Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department told the board that records (site plans, Sanborn maps and permits) show one legal space in the garage but no documentation that parking in the required rear yard was ever formally authorized. Planning staff said long‑standing use, standing alone, does not create code compliance absent evidence (such as a permit, plan or recorded easement) proving authorization. Commissioners noted the dispute has an ongoing private civil dimension (easement/litigation) but limited the board’s review to the material submitted for the letter of determination.

After asking for additional research and weighing the documentary record, the board voted 4‑0 to deny the appeal and to uphold the zoning administrator’s letter of determination. Commissioners suggested the parties pursue private resolution (easement or civil suit) or, separately, pursue a building permit to restore the garage’s legal status in a manner consistent with code.