Board affirms environmental review and approves conditional use for 1960–1998 Market Street after months-long appeals

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Sept. 15 affirmed the Planning Department’s mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the proposed 1960–1998 Market Street development and approved the Planning Commission’s conditional use authorization for the project after an extended public hearing that drew neighbors, construction-trade unions and the project sponsor.

What the board decided - Environmental document: The board voted to affirm the Planning Commission’s adoption of the mitigated negative declaration (Item 16). Motion to approve and refer related items to committee passed by unanimous roll call (11–0). - Conditional use authorization: After hearing testimony and rebuttals, the board approved the Planning Commission’s conditional use decision (Item 20). The board recorded 7 ayes and 4 no votes on the motion to approve and table related procedural items.

What the project is: The proposal would demolish a long‑standing gas station and build a nine‑story, mixed‑use building with roughly 108 residential units, about 86 below‑grade parking spaces and approximately 8,150 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space. The plan includes on‑site below‑market‑rate units.

Major issues raised at the hearing - Hazardous‑materials and soil removal: Appellants led by the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council argued that the environmental review understates the scope of contaminated‑soil removal. Counsel for the appellants said early documents referenced the removal of 40,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil but that subsequent testing showed roughly 400,000–484,000 cubic feet would need excavation and removal — a large increase that the appellants said required a fuller Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA. Appellants’ experts also raised concerns about petroleum hydrocarbons, vapor intrusion into adjacent basements, chromium and nickel exceedances, and the public‑health implications for workers and neighbors.

- Project labor, workforce safety and union testimony: Construction‑trades representatives (including trade councils, electricians and ironworkers) supported the appeal on health‑and‑safety grounds and asked for stronger scrutiny. The Building Trades Council said an EIR is required under the “fair argument” standard because of potentially significant impacts during excavation and the large number of truck trips to remove contaminated soil. Several union representatives said they would not want workers on a site where potential exposures were not fully characterized.

- City staff response: Planning staff and the Department of Public Health (DPH) said the MND identified hazardous‑materials impacts as potentially significant and incorporated mitigation measures, including a soil management plan, on‑site and peri‑excavation controls, a health and safety plan for workers, dust and air monitoring, and asbestos controls for work in serpentine rock. DPH staff said borings and other site investigations had informed the mitigation measures and that routine regulatory procedures (including weekly reporting and monitoring during excavation and tank removal) would govern remediation, tank closure and disposal of contaminated soil. DPH staff noted that the soil contamination identified so far has been low and primarily at shallow depths (surficial soils) and that groundwater in the downtown basin is already considered unsuitable for drinking.

- Traffic, air quality and greenhouse gases: Appellants argued the increased volume of soil removal and truck trips would change the project’s air‑quality and greenhouse‑gas impacts. Planning and air‑quality consultants said the CEQA analysis used appropriate thresholds and that planned measures would keep emissions and air‑quality impacts below significance thresholds; staff said the transportation and emissions analyses were prepared using accepted city guidelines and that the revised excavation estimates did not alter the core conclusions since the analyses were prepared based on the project description.

Neighbors’ concerns and design issues: Dozens of nearby residents testified about shadowing, lost light and privacy because the proposed building is close to older, low‑rise buildings on Herman and Buchanan streets. Many neighbors supported a larger setback in the project’s east wing; the planning department said the final approved design stepped back higher floors and created a cohesive mid‑block open space rather than fragmented rear yards.

Sponsor and supporters: The project sponsor said the team worked with Planning staff and neighborhood groups over two years; the sponsor added that the new design removed curb cuts from Market Street, moved the parking entrance off Market Street, provides on‑site affordable units and installs a public plaza at the Market/Buchanan corner. Supporters including neighborhood associations and housing advocates told the board the project implements Market Octavia’s goals for transit‑oriented infill, and recommended denying the appeal.

Board’s action and next steps: The board found the MND adequate and approved the conditional use authorization. The approval includes the Planning Department’s required mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and DPH and Planning will maintain oversight during remediation and construction. Appellants may pursue further administrative appeals where allowed by code; several zoning issues raised (rear‑yard variances and related items) are subject to appeals to the Board of Appeals, independent of the environmental and conditional use decisions.

Why it matters: The case highlights competing priorities in dense, built‑out neighborhoods: transit‑oriented infill and housing (including on‑site below‑market units) versus neighborhood preservation, construction‑period impacts and the handling of legacy contamination at former gas‑station sites. The hearing also shows how trade‑union safety concerns over remediation can intersect with CEQA legal standards.