Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission OKs conditional use for small internet services exchange at 435 Potrero with noise and generator conditions

San Francisco Planning Commission · July 11, 2013
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission approved a conditional use authorization to legalize a 10,000 sq ft Internet services exchange at 435 Potrero Avenue, requiring an upgraded exhaust/noise mitigation plan, compliance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District permits, a community liaison, and a six‑month staff report back; vote 5–1.

The Planning Commission voted to approve a request that would legalize an existing Internet services exchange at 435 Potrero Avenue under the site’s prior M1 zoning. Staff said the building had operated since 2000 and was eligible for legitimization; the current proposal asks to legalize the Internet services exchange under a conditional use authorization required after the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning.

Corey Teague and other staff acknowledged neighbors’ concerns about a backup diesel generator, vibrations and noise from rooftop mechanical equipment. Staff said the backup generator had a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District but that the project would be required to meet the San Francisco Noise Ordinance and other environmental and public‑health requirements. The sponsor and proposed operator, represented by counsel Jim Rubin and operator Matt Novak, committed to retrofitting rooftop mechanical equipment, adding screening, exploring biofuel, installing vibration isolators and naming a community liaison.

Commissioners discussed enforcement mechanisms, building permits and a six‑month memo back to the commission documenting permitting outcomes and any DPH/BACM findings. The motion included conditions requiring the project obtain all required air‑quality and DPH permits, a building permit and final inspections, implementation of noise mitigation measures, and naming a community liaison; the commission also required a staff report in six months on permitting and any complaints.

The motion passed 5–1, with Commissioner Sugaya recording the dissenting vote.