Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mission Bay Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects Mission Bay Alliance challenge; upholds Planning Commission allocation for Warriors development
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied the Mission Bay Alliance’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s office‑allocation ruling for the Warriors arena project, finding the legal challenges time‑barred and, on the merits, that allocation and design‑review determinations met Planning Code Section 3.21 requirements.
The Board of Appeals on Feb. 24 denied an appeal by the Mission Bay Alliance that sought to overturn a Planning Commission motion allocating office space to the Warriors/Mission Bay South development. Appellants argued the Alexandria District transfers and related motions (dating to 2008 and earlier) improperly delegated allocation authority and contained accounting errors that left the Warriors’ project without confirmed office entitlement.
Tom Lippy, counsel for the Mission Bay Alliance, argued that transfers and record‑keeping around the Alexandria District and subsequent land sales meant office allocation accounting could not be verified. He also said 25,000 square feet in the arena building may have been mischaracterized as accessory retail rather than office, which would change the Prop M calculations.
Project counsel and Planning staff defended the Planning Commission’s framework and record. Planning’s Scott Sanchez said roughly 677,000 square feet remained available and the 577,000 square feet requested fit within the available allocation; he also said notices of special restrictions and reporting had been completed and that Planning’s rules implementing Proposition M (including the Alexandria District approach) were lawful and had been publicly processed.
After hearing argument and public comment for and against the development, the board concluded that the appellants’ legal attacks on older resolutions and motions were time‑barred and, in the alternative, found the Planning Commission’s determinations met Section 3.21 criteria. The board adopted the Planning Commission’s findings and environmental conclusions and denied the appeal.
