Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rinc On Hill Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals leaves Rincon Hill approvals intact after neighbors’ air‑quality complaints
Summary
The Board of Appeals declined to overturn Planning Commission exceptions and a variance for the 430 Main/429 Beale Rincon Hill project after neighbors raised air‑quality and courtyard‑ventilation concerns; the tie vote left approvals in place.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 5 rejected appeals from neighbors who asked for a new project‑level environmental review of a proposed 8‑story, 113‑unit apartment building at 430 Main/429 Beale in the Rincon Hill area, leaving in place the Planning Commission’s findings and the zoning administrator’s variance.
Baycrest residents and appellants said the sponsor’s plan would effectively ‘cap’ an existing courtyard and create a boxed‑in area that could trap vehicle exhaust and reduce sunlight and airflow for roughly 288 existing units they occupy. Residents, through oral testimony and a petition cited at the hearing, pressed for a focused EIR and additional air‑quality modeling. One Baycrest resident told the board the proposed massing creates “a hazard” for courtyard users.
Project counsel and Planning Department staff said the proposal complies with the Rincon Hill plan and is supported by several site‑specific analyses. Planning staff and the sponsor summarized project‑level studies including an Article 38 air‑quality screening performed by the Department of Public Health, a wind/wind‑effect letter, and a shadow analysis; the project also proposes on‑site below‑market units and community fees. The sponsor noted an approximately $1.26 million payment to the SOMA stabilization fund and other neighborhood improvement contributions.
Board members debated whether the administrative record showed an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission. The board is limited to reviewing whether the commission erred in interpreting the code; CEQA appeals and requests for a new EIR are typically routed to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. After discussion the board recorded a 2‑2 vote with one member absent; four votes are required to overturn departmental action, so the Planning Commission’s adoption of findings and the variance remained intact.
Appellants said they would pursue other available remedies; sponsors said they intend to proceed under the approvals granted and noted the project includes sustainability features and a rent‑restricted component.
