Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Department denial over parking conversion at 69 Montezuma; easement dispute remains in court
Summary
The Board of Appeals on July 11 upheld the Planning Department’s denial of a permit that would legalize alteration converting an on-site space at 69 Montezuma into sealed parking/entry, finding the off-street parking previously provided cannot be removed without a variance; commissioners voted 4-0 to uphold the denial.
The Board of Appeals on July 11 upheld the Planning Department’s denial of a permit that sought to legalize modifications at 69 Montezuma Street that appellants say removed a code-required off-street parking space and converted the entry area into a fenced gate.
Appellant Pat Buskovich and representatives argued the historical record is muddled and disputed whether a lawful garage ever existed in the location at issue. Retired San Francisco Fire Department Captain Mario Ballard testified that the current configuration creates a life-safety and emergency-access concern if a car were parked in the entryway. Adjacent property owner Robert Mostovoy described his family’s concerns about loss of ingress/egress and safety.
Elizabeth Craterra, owner of 65–67 Montezuma and the easement holder, said the parking easement was created as a condition of earlier planning approvals and that the easement and required parking had been long established. Planning Department staff (Scott Sanchez) summarized records showing previous permit references and an 18-foot curb cut and stated his department concluded the second parking space was required and could not be eliminated without a variance; DBI (Tony Greco) said work had been done without a permit and enforcement processes were initiated.
After deliberation and discussion about the unusual factual record and overlapping private easement litigation, the board voted 4-0 to uphold Planning’s denial under the planning code provision that off-street parking once provided shall not be reduced or made unusable. Commissioners noted the matter could be resolved by variance application or private settlement but the board’s action enforces the code requirement and preserves the enforcement pathway.
The easement and related private litigation remain unresolved; the board’s administrative decision requires compliance with the planning code and leaves enforcement and restoration or variance-seeking to the parties and relevant departments.
