Board of Appeals upholds DBI permit for UCSF project at 1001 Potrero Avenue, denies appeal 4–0

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–0 to deny an appeal of Department of Building Inspection permit number 202001162041, which covers site work at 1001 Potrero Avenue related to the UCSF research and academic building project. The decision upholds the permit that had been issued April 20, 2020 and subsequently suspended pending appeal.

Appellant Christopher Seguin argued for seven minutes that the permit should not have been approved because it lacked required moratorium-street approval, did not preserve ADA parking during construction, failed to secure Article 12 (water-conservation) approvals from the Public Utilities Commission and Department of Public Health, did not follow streetscape requirements tied to the Mayor’s Vision Zero/high-injury corridor designation, and listed only 16 street-tree replacements when frontage calculations would require substantially more. "Without an approved tree planting application listing the correct number of replacement trees, 144, the DBI permit should not have been issued," Seguin said.

Representatives for the permit holder pushed back. Jeffrey Nelson of Bolt Company, the general contractor, described the appealed permit as work limited to pavement, curbs, bio-retention areas, stairs and minor retaining walls outside the building footprint and said the Department of Public Health had authority for certain site actions during the COVID-19 response. Counsel Charles Olson reiterated that the UC Regents served as the CEQA lead agency and that challenges to the EIR or its addendum generally must meet a high threshold of substantial evidence.

Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department told the board that the EIR and addendum were prepared by the UC Regents as lead agency and that some planning-code provisions cited by the appellant would not apply to the building as proposed. Joe Duffy of DBI said the permit went through agency review, was properly approved and issued, and was later suspended because of the appeal.

Commissioners questioned whether the appellant presented substantive evidence that the permit was improperly issued and repeatedly noted the Board’s limited jurisdiction over CEQA matters. Commissioner Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued; the motion carried 4–0. The board adjourned after completing the agenda.

The Board’s determinations do not resolve outstanding CEQA or administrative questions about the EIR addendum; those matters, according to planning staff and counsel, are directed to the UC Regents or other appropriate review venues.