Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the India Basin Permit Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board says India Basin permit requires conditional use; PDR owner urges expedited planning review
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted an India Basin appeal after interim controls were reenacted, removing the building permit from its jurisdiction and sending the case to the Planning Department for a conditional-use authorization. PDR business owners and neighbors testified about outreach, safety and job impacts.
The Board of Appeals on Jan. 23 granted the India Basin Neighborhood Association’s appeal of a building permit for properties at 845–855 Hudson Ave, finding that reenacted interim controls now require a conditional-use authorization (CU) and that the board lacks jurisdiction to grant the permit.
City legal staff told commissioners the interim controls that had expired were later reenacted and will remain in effect at least through February 2009; as a result, the project requires a CU and any appeal of a CU would go to the Board of Supervisors, not to the Board of Appeals. Vice President Albright moved to grant the appeal and deny the permit on that jurisdictional basis; the motion carried unanimously.
Developers and PDR tenants urged the board to consider the economic impacts of delay. ‘‘I’m the owner of the small steel fabrication shop in San Francisco,’’ said Bridal Bannon, who described being displaced from a prior location and leasing a lot at Hudson Avenue for a short term. Bannon asked for speed from Planning if the matter must move to a CU process.
Builder Brian Maloney told the board that outreach earlier in the process led, in his account, to withdrawals of complaints: "When this appeal was filed against Brendan, we went and we talked to the people who filed the complaint. Then when everything was explained to them, they agreed to withdraw it." Appellants disputed that characterization, saying the appeal was filed specifically because interim controls were expected to lapse and the timing mattered.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department said the department could not guarantee expedition of a CU application but noted the matter is treated as an active enforcement case that originated in August and will require planning review and potential remediation. "We will do our best to see if that happens," Sanchez said.
The board’s finding removes the permit from its remedial authority and requires the permit holder to pursue conditional-use authorization with the Planning Department; Planning staff was directed to work with the parties on the CU process and to advise the applicant on the specific materials required.
Next steps: the permit holder must submit a CU application and work with Planning; the Board’s decision is a jurisdictional finding rather than an approval of a development proposal. If the parties later challenge a CU decision, the appeal route will differ (Board of Supervisors).
