Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Interim Controls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals continues Brewster/Joy appeals as interim zoning controls bar permit approval
Summary
The San Francisco City Board of Appeals continued two related appeals affecting 162 Brewster Street to the call of the chair after hearing neighbors' infrastructure and parking concerns and city staff warnings that interim zoning controls (Planning Code §306.7) preclude approving the permit now.
The San Francisco City Board of Appeals on April 16 voted unanimously to continue two related appeals concerning 162 Brewster Street to the call of the chair after hearing testimony about neighborhood infrastructure problems and legal limits imposed by interim zoning controls.
Neighbors Roy Olsen and Aurelio Viscara told the board the proposed single-family house would worsen parking shortages, strain sewer and water pressure, and add windows that overlook their backyards. "This is all about development," Olsen said, describing repeated late-night disturbances and years of friction in the neighborhood. Viscara said Brewster Street remains narrow and can be effectively one lane, raising concerns about emergency access during construction.
Project sponsor Matthew Brennan and structural engineer Rodrigo Santos said the house is a two-story home over a garage, designed with drilled-pier foundations, retaining walls and fire protection measures. Santos said the project has been through planning and building reviews and "is not going to tax the infrastructure" and will stabilize the site.
Zoning Administrator Larry Badner told the board that the permit had been approved earlier in the pipeline but that an interim zoning control adopted by the Board of Supervisors now requires a conditional use authorization in the affected area. "Once interim controls are imposed, no department, city and in the city and county, including the Board of Appeals, may approve any application," Badner said, advising the board that the permit could not be granted unless it met the conditional-use criteria.
Deputy City Attorney Kathy Barnes pointed the board to Planning Code Section 306.7 and related interim controls and said the law requires the board to apply the law in effect at the time of the hearing. The board discussed options including denying the appeal while upholding the suspension, continuing the matter, or allowing the sponsor to pursue a conditional-use process with the Planning Commission.
After extended deliberation about fairness to the permit holder and the interim rules' purpose of protecting sewer, water pressure and emergency access, the board voted 5-0 to continue both the appeal of the permit and the permit-suspension appeal to the call of the chair. The board advised the parties that continuation would preserve options to seek a conditional-use authorization or to address outstanding infrastructure conditions before any permit could move forward.
What happens next: both appeals will remain on the board's calendar at the chair's call; the suspension remains in effect until further action by the board.
