Board orders Planning Commission review after overturning zoning administrator's signficance finding for 88 Bloxham tennis removal

The Board of Appeals on Dec. 8 overturned a zoning administrator's determination that Alexandria Real Estate's decision to remove a below-grade, private tennis facility from the approved 88 Bloxham Street project did not constitute a "significant" change. By reversing the LOD, the board sent the proposed revision back to the Planning Commission for a new large-project authorization if the sponsor seeks to implement the removal.

San Franciscans for Sports and Recreation, which filed the appeal, argued the San Francisco Tennis Club's replacement had been a negotiated, hard-won concession recorded in the Planning Commission motion and that removing the 12-court facility represented a substantial change (appellants referenced a roughly 11% below-grade floor-area reduction figure). Appellant counsel Anthony Giles emphasized the club's unique role as an indoor facility with long-running public programs and youth clinics.

Alexandria's counsel, John Kevlin, said the private tennis facility was part of a voluntary agreement, not a Planning Code condition, and that the project still delivers multiple substantial public benefits including an affordable-housing land dedication, a public recreation center with pools, and a linear park. He and the sponsor argued decades of zoning-administrator practice permit removal of below-grade components without returning to the Planning Commission when the changes do not alter the above-grade project appearance or conditions of approval.

Zoning Administrator Corey Teague defended his LOD, saying the removal did not change above-grade appearance or internal layout and pointing to the private nature of the tennis facility and the fact the Planning Commission did not encode a replacement requirement as a condition of approval. He did, however, require an informational presentation to a joint Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator hearing before the Planning Department acts on implementing permits.

More than 100 members of the public spoke during a lengthy public-comment period; numerous speakers and community organizations, including Youth Tennis Advantage and USTA Northern California, urged reversal and highlighted the club's youth programs and citywide recreational value. Several speakers described prior ballot efforts, the club's history and the temporary replacement courts at the Cow Palace as an inadequate substitute.

Commissioners wrestled with the legal standard: whether the zoning administrator's decision was an abuse of discretion in failing to apply the Planning Commission's chosen word, "significant," to the facts before him. Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to grant the appeal and overturn the LOD on the basis that the zoning administrator erred in his significance determination given the unique facts of the case, including the tennis facility's prominence in the project record and the scale of the below-grade change. The motion carried 4-0.

Overturning the LOD does not itself force the sponsor to restore the tennis facility; rather, it means any final removal would require a new large-project authorization before the Planning Commission for public hearing and decision. The Planning Department and the sponsor said the project will be presented to the Planning Commission for informational review while next steps are coordinated.