Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds Planning Department notice of violation for 429–433 Haight Street after neighborhood safety debate
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to uphold the Planning Department’s notice of violation for 429–433 Haight Street, citing unresolved violations related to parking, rear-yard and storage. Neighbors raised safety concerns over an often‑open garage door; the owner disputed some of the evidence.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously to uphold a zoning administrator notice of violation for 429–433 Haight Street after hearing competing evidence about the property’s history and current use.
Tina Tam of the Planning Department told the board that site visits and document review show the property remains in violation of multiple planning code sections, including rear‑yard encroachment and the removal of required open space and parking. "The planning department is asking you to uphold the notice of violation," Tam said, citing site inspections and archival photographs she said contradict the appellant’s claims that the rear lot was a legal nonconforming parking area for all parcels.
Appellants' counsel disputed that every portion of the rear lot qualified as a legal nonconforming parking use, while the appellant’s representative argued that at least some parking was established by 1974 and therefore permitted to continue. Counsel for the appellant said the evidence submitted—photographs and signed tenant statements—supports continued parking at the rear and that other cited violations had been abated.
Neighborhood residents and the Lower Haight Neighborhood Organization urged the board to treat public‑safety and nuisance reports seriously. Valerie Brown said neighbors had documented the garage door open at times and reported police observations of people using the driveway to evade officers and engage in suspected drug activity. Tenants who spoke at the hearing said the rear lot has been used safely for years and described repeated efforts to fix the garage door and maintain access for laundry and parking.
Commissioners questioned the sufficiency of documentary evidence on both sides and noted that legal nonconforming status requires documentation of the use at specific historical dates. After discussion focused on whether the appellant had submitted persuasive proof that the parking predated the code change, Commissioner Garcia moved to uphold the zoning administrator’s determination. The motion passed 5–0.
The board’s decision leaves the zoning administrator’s enforcement in place; Planning recommended either a conditional‑use review to regularize parking with mitigation measures (screening, lighting, landscaping) or that the owner return the lot to compliance, depending on how the owner proceeds.
