Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Glen Park Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances Glen Park parking‑lot ordinance with 6‑year sunset; staff to draft deed restriction language
Summary
Supervisors forwarded an ordinance that would permit an existing private dirt parking lot that straddles Glen Park NCT and RH‑2 zoning to operate as-of-right for a time-limited period (72 months). Planning staff cautioned the Planning Commission disapproved and recommended rezoning or conditional use; the sponsor and City Attorney will draft deed‑restriction language for the Board.
The Land Use Committee on June 25 voted to send to the full Board an ordinance intended to regularize a privately owned dirt parking lot in Glen Park that straddles a commercial-transit district and RH‑2 residential zoning. The committee recommended a time-limited authorization to allow the lot to operate for up to 72 months while the property owner pursues potential housing development.
Supervisor Jeff Sheehy, the item sponsor, said the lot has operated informally for decades and provides neighborhood parking for BART commuters and local merchants. He argued a six‑year, time-limited legalization would provide the family owner an income source to begin planning for future development and create an incentive to develop housing rather than permanently fence the lot. "By allowing the parking lot for a definitive period of time, that gives the resources to start the planning," Sheehy said on the record.
Aaron Starr of the Planning Department told the committee that the Planning Commission had unanimously disapproved the version it considered on June 7: commissioners and many correspondents said the property is more suitable for housing given its proximity to Glen Park BART and would be better handled through rezoning or a conditional use authorization with an explicit temporary term. Starr noted the Glen Park NCT typically permits temporary parking through conditional-use authorization for shorter terms (commonly three years) and that a recorded notice of special restriction could be used to indicate a sunset.
Supervisor Jane Kim asked whether the ordinance's amendment that adds a 72‑month expiration would be enforceable and whether a deed restriction or permit marker could be recorded. Deputy City Attorney John Givner offered to work with Planning to draft clarifying language and a mechanism for recording a notice of restriction ahead of the full Board meeting.
Public comment at the committee hearing was brief and included a speaker suggesting development incentives modeled on planned Mission Rock construction; no formal opposition prevented forwarding. Supervisor Asha Safai moved to send the ordinance to the full Board with a positive recommendation. The committee advanced the item without objection; the sponsor indicated willingness to introduce an amendment at the Board meeting to clarify enforcement and deed‑restriction mechanics.
