Board hears hours-long appeal of 480 Potrero Ave. project; continues matter to Oct. 22

The Board of Supervisors held an extended public hearing on appeals of a planning department final mitigated negative declaration (MND) for a proposed six-story, mixed-use building at 480 Potrero Avenue. After more than three hours of testimony from appellants, project sponsors, the planning department and members of the public, Supervisor Malia Cohen asked for additional time to review parking-related questions and moved to continue the matter. The board granted a two‑week continuance and set the item for the 3 p.m. special order on October 22.

What was appealed: Two appellants and numerous neighbors argued the planning department’s MND was inadequate on multiple grounds:

- Baseline and parking: Appellants said the department used an incorrect baseline by treating the site as vacant during environmental review, rather than as an actively used parking lot. They asked for a full environmental impact report (EIR) and said the loss or relocation of 50–60 parked cars had not been analyzed.

- Hazardous materials and soils: Appellants pointed to on‑site contaminated soils and naturally occurring serpentinite containing asbestos. They argued soil testing and mitigation plans were insufficiently developed before the MND was certified and that nearby sensitive uses — including Downtown High School and low‑income housing at Mariposa Gardens — were not properly noticed.

- Historic resource risk: The Verdi Club, an Italian‑American social club dating to the early 20th century, was cited as an eligible historic resource adjacent to the site. Appellants said the MND lacked adequate historic‑resource analysis and mitigation, and they disputed the sufficiency of conditions that the planning commission added to protect the club.

- Shadow and noise studies: Appellants alleged the shadow study had been scaled in a way that masked impacts to Franklin Square and that the noise analysis was prepared by an unlicensed, in‑house author rather than a licensed acoustical professional.

- Public‑process concerns: Appellants and public commenters described missing correspondence in the planning file and cited a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force finding that identified process violations by city planners.

Planning department response: Don Lewis and Sarah Jones of the Planning Department told the board the MND and a community plan exemption were appropriate. They said the project conforms to the Eastern Neighborhoods plan and its programmatic EIR and that project‑specific mitigation for hazardous materials is included in the MND. The department said the sponsor had already begun soil testing and is coordinating site mitigation with the Department of Public Health (DPH) and that Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) measures would govern asbestos‑containing material removal. The department also said notification requirements under CEQA and local rules were met, and that the project would not cast substantial shadows on public parks.

Project sponsor’s presentation: The developer team said the site is currently vacant, that the short‑lived parking operation was not a lawful long‑term use, and that the project team had worked with neighbors. The sponsor said the design had been revised in response to feedback: residential units reduced (reported changes from 84 to 75), parking increased (reported from 38 to 49), bicycle parking enlarged (reported from 18 to 49), and the team agreed to security measures and historic‑resource documentation. The sponsor and counsel said DPH and BAAQMD oversight, plus standard city construction dust controls, would address soil and asbestos risks. They also said piles would not be driven at the site, reducing vibration risk to adjacent structures.

Public testimony: Scores of neighbors and community groups spoke. Key concerns included potential health impacts to adjacent low‑income housing residents, protection of the Verdi Club’s historic plaster ornamentation, alleged missing public‑records correspondence, and the adequacy of environmental studies. Supporters of the project — including a housing coalition and construction‑trade union representatives — said existing processes had been followed and urged denial of the appeal.

Board action: Supervisor Malia Cohen asked for a two‑week continuance to October 22 to follow up with the sponsor and planning department on parking and other technical questions. The motion to continue was seconded by Supervisor Campos and adopted without recorded objection; the hearing record will remain open for board deliberation when the item returns.

Why it matters: The case raises recurring land‑use and environmental review tensions in San Francisco’s infill neighborhoods — balancing housing production consistent with the Eastern Neighborhoods plan against neighborhood concerns about hazardous materials, historic preservation and local infrastructure impacts.

Votes at a glance: The only formal action at this hearing was a motion to continue the item to the October 22 3 p.m. special order; the motion was seconded by Supervisor Campos and granted without objection.