Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Occupancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds street-occupancy permit for crane at 455 Vallejo with revised plans
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by neighbors and upheld a temporary occupancy permit for a Sheedy Crane placed at 455 Vallejo Street, conditioning the permit on revised plans dated 03/05/2008 that specify an 11-foot travel lane during daytime operations and an 18-foot lane at night.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 5 upheld a Department of Public Works Bureau of Street Use and Mapping permit allowing Sheedy Crane and Rigging to place a crane at 455 Vallejo Street, but required revised plans that spell out lane widths and permit conditions.
Louise Laub, representing appellant Sandeep Pangarani, told the board she was concerned the crane and its outriggers would encroach on fire and pedestrian access and asked whether the crane could be moved to Montgomery Street. Nick Elsner, senior plan checker with the Bureau of Street Use and Mapping, said the temporary occupancy permit is issued under the public works code and requires frontage-owner consent when outriggers front another property. Elsner described on-site coordination and said the current proposal would maintain an 11-foot lane with outriggers in place and an 18-foot lane when outriggers are removed; he said DPW could stamp an approved set of drawings to be part of the permit record.
Brian Dusso of the Department of Parking and Traffic explained that a special traffic permit is only required when operations cannot satisfy the Blue Book (Regulations for Working in San Francisco Streets) and that, depending on roadway width and lane count, a contractor may be allowed to extend into the street under conditions that keep required lanes open. Dusso said DPT enforces lane-width and reversible-lane conditions in cooperation with the police department.
The permit holder's agent defended the site choice as the least disruptive alternative and noted other locations would either be too far from the work or would require prolonged street closures. Commissioners asked DPW to provide a phone number and an on-site inspector for neighborhood enforcement complaints; Elsner said an inspector and a contact number would be provided.
On a motion from Commissioner Tanya Peterson the board approved the permit with revised plans dated 03/05/2008 reflecting an 11-foot path of travel during daytime operations and an 18-foot path of travel at night. Commissioners Fung, Knox, Garcia and Holland voted in favor; the vote was 5-0.
The board recorded the amended permit condition and instructed staff to notify the permit holder and the appellant that the permit will include the stamped, approved plan and that enforcement remedies (including fines) are available if conditions are violated. The board closed the hearing without further continuance.
What happens next: DPW said it will amend the permit record to include the revised, stamped plans and will provide a neighborhood contact number; the revised plan date is 03/05/2008 and will be part of the final permit documentation.
