Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Developments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals Upholds Permit for 480 Potrero Avenue Despite Appellant’s Complaints About Jackhammering and Records
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal to overturn the building permit for a six‑story mixed‑use project at 480 Potrero Avenue, finding the project code‑compliant and that environmental review and mitigation measures were adequate. The appellant alleged improper jackhammering and withheld documents; the permit holder and city inspectors said required public‑health permits covered the testing and DBI closed its complaint.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 9 denied an appeal protesting a building permit for 480 Potrero Avenue and upheld the permit, concluding the project met code and had undergone extensive review.
Appellant Micah Ringel told the board that he and neighborhood members had seen “jackhammers jackhammering at 480 Potrero Avenue without a permit,” said he had filed Sunshine Ordinance complaints about withheld documents and accused the Planning Department of sequestering a shadow study. Ringel said the Department of Public Health permit appeared issued to a consultant, not the developer’s agents, and argued mitigation measures and monitoring had been deferred in ways that left the community unprotected.
Permit holder counsel Sufi Tabazov Hariri told the board the soil‑testing work required only a Department of Public Health permit, that the contractor AGS had that permit, that there was “no notice of violation issued” by DBI after investigation, and that soil testing — not demolition or grading — had been the only activity prior to the building permit. “So for these reasons, we respectfully request that you deny appellant’s appeal and let us move forward with this project,” Hariri said.
Planning and building staff summarized the procedural history: the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors previously reviewed the environmental documents and the courts had considered related litigation. DBI’s inspector reported that an initial complaint was investigated and, after consulting with DPH, was closed because DPH had issued the appropriate permit for borings. Planning staff emphasized that mitigation monitoring enforcement is distinct from the validity of a building permit.
After discussion about construction monitoring and potential underpinning should excavation encounter neighboring foundations, the board read into the record environmental findings adopted earlier in the review process and voted to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that the project is code‑compliant and that the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adequate. The roll call recorded a 4–0 vote to deny the appeal.
What happens next: With the appeal denied, the permit remains in force and the project can proceed subject to the mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval and any enforcement actions that result from complaints about on‑site compliance.
