As we first reported earlier this month:
The former homes that stood on the underdeveloped Glen Park lot fronting Brompton Avenue and Kern Street were removed in the late 1960s, when the city widened Bosworth Street and reserved the now vacant 21 Brompton Avenue parcel for the potential development of a City-owned parking lot.
But when the City’s Parking Authority failed to demonstrate any interest in the aforementioned parking lot proposal, the parcel, which is zoned RH-2, which would allow for a two-family dwelling to be built, was sold to private party in the early 1970s.
And while technically not permitted for use as a parking lot, the vacant parcel has served as one ever since.
Around two years ago, plans to formally convert the parcel into a paid parking lot started to percolate. And last year, the owners of the property sought a letter of determination from San Francisco’s Zoning Administrator to establish the lot as a legal nonconforming use, a request which was denied as the parking lot was never permitted in the first place.
But three months ago, Supervisor Jeff Sheehy introduced legislation which would allow for the parcel to be turned into a legal, and potentially permanent, parking lot, the Planning Commission hearing for which is scheduled for next week.
San Francisco’s Planning Department, however, is recommending that the proposed legislation and legitimization of the parking lot use be denied, or at the very least that it’s written to restrict the number of years a legal parking lot operation would be allowed.
In addition, the Department is encouraging a rezoning of the site to allow for a dense multi-family development to eventually rise. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
On June 7, San Francisco’s Planning Commission sided with the Planning Department and issued their formal disapproval for the proposed legislation along with a recommendation that San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors do the same.
And yesterday, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to approve the proposed legislation, allowing for a paid parking lot to be established on the site, but with an amendment limiting its operation to six years, a limit which could, of course, be extended in six years time.