Board of Appeals denies challenge to fleet-charging permit at 140 Fourteenth Street

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 28 denied an appeal of a Dec. 29, 2023 Department of Building Inspection (DBI) alteration permit that authorized fleet electric-vehicle charging at 140 Fourteenth Street.

Appellant Mark Malouf argued the permit should have required conditional-use approval because the site functions as a private parking lot for autonomous-vehicle fleets and not a vehicle-storage lot. Malouf’s land-use attorney, Peter Ziblatt, said the permit-holder had improperly relied on a ‘‘loophole’’ in the planning code to avoid public scrutiny and urged the board to require a conditional-use permit for the actual use.

The permit holder, represented by attorney John Lehi, presented building-permit records showing the property was converted to a vehicle-storage lot by 2021, prior to the planning code amendments that added explicit conditional-use controls for fleet charging. Lehi said the permit at issue ‘‘was properly established via a building permit’’ and asked the board to deny the appeal.

Planning Department Zoning Administrator Corey Teague and DBI representative Matthew Green told the board the contested permit was reviewed by relevant departments and found to be legally issued. Teague said the central question for the board was whether the permit was issued in error; his position was that it was not. Green recounted the site’s post-fire demolition and the 2021 permits that, in DBI’s view, established vehicle-storage use.

Speakers from labor and business, including a representative of the electrical trades and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, urged the board to reject the appeal, saying the project would create local green jobs and that the permit predated recent legislative amendments. Appellant counsel responded in rebuttal that the record lacks evidence the site ever operated as a vehicle-storage facility and suggested enforcement, not permitting, remedies should not replace the requirement for conditional use.

After deliberation — during which several commissioners said enforcement of improper uses is a separate process from deciding whether a permit was legally issued — the board voted to deny the appeal, 5-0, upholding the DBI permit. The board’s action means the permit remains in effect; no further administrative action on the permit was announced at the hearing.

The board did not impose additional conditions or remand the permit; members said enforcement mechanisms exist if the site’s use departs from the legally authorized underlying use.