Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission’s HomeSF authorization for 3945 Judah despite tank concerns
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of a HomeSF authorization for 3945 Judah Street (vote 4–0), while the project sponsor must complete Department of Public Health (Mahler/Article 22A) remediation steps and an SMP before building permits can be issued.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 29 denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s HomeSF authorization for a 20-unit project at 3945 Judah Street, upholding the commission’s decision by a 4–0 vote.
Appellant Mike Murphy urged the board to overturn the Planning Commission, arguing the commission had ignored public concern about two closed underground storage tanks (USTs) beneath the site and historic groundwater test results indicating elevated hydrocarbons. "These tanks are a nuisance," Murphy said, reciting 1986 water-test results he said showed contaminant levels hundreds of times higher than EPA drinking-water limits.
Project counsel Steve Battle and planner Scott Sanchez told the board the project was enrolled in the Department of Public Health’s Mahler program (Article 22A) in 2018 and that the Mahler process — not the Planning Commission’s land-use determination — governs tank removal and remediation. Battle said DPH will require submission and approval of a phase-2 work plan and a site mitigation plan (SMP) before construction. Planning staff confirmed that, under the Mahler program, a building permit cannot be issued until DPH signs off on required remediation steps.
The hearing included extensive public comment both supporting and opposing the project. Neighbors voiced concerns about notice, neighborhood compatibility, and soil/tank remediation; supporters, including housing advocates, argued the project adds 20 units with 25% on-site below-market-rate units and will remediate a vacant gas-station site.
Several commissioners emphasized that DPH has authority over remediation and that an approved SMP is required before any excavation or issuance of a building permit. The board's denial of the appeal affirms the Planning Commission’s exercise of discretion; critics retain the ability to appeal any future site-permit approvals if they judge DPH’s remediation or the subsequent building permit inadequate.
The board's action moves the entitlement forward while leaving remediation oversight to DPH; commissioners and staff encouraged parties to monitor the DPH review and reminded the public that permit-stage appeals remain available if site-mitigation is unsatisfactory.
