Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 570 Market Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms planning commission’s mitigated negative declaration for 570 Market Street after contested hearing
Summary
After appellants argued the MND underestimated noise, vibration and historic impacts, the Board of Supervisors voted 10–0 to affirm the planning commission’s final MND for the proposed 29‑story hotel at 570 Market Street and table related reversal motions.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the final mitigated negative declaration (FMND) for a proposed 29‑story hotel at 570 Market Street and voted to affirm the planning commission’s approval of the FMND (Item 39), tabling two related items (40 and 41).
Appellants representing nearby properties argued that the MND understates construction noise and vibration impacts and that those impacts could be significant for adjacent historic structures. Brian Flynn, counsel for the owner of 44 Montgomery Street, said expert reports in the record showed potential for significant noise and vibration effects and urged the board to require a full environmental impact report (EIR). Zach Fady, owner of the Town Street Building, described his building’s single‑pane windows and said the project’s proximity would cause sustained high noise levels that could damage economics and operations.
Planning staff, represented by senior planner Ryan Shum, countered that the FMND followed city guidelines, addressed geotechnical and vibration issues, and that site‑specific DBI (Department of Building Inspection) review and required mitigation would ensure safe construction. The department said the FMND identified mitigation measures — including a vibration management and monitoring plan, preconstruction surveys, and monitoring thresholds — that would reduce impacts to less‑than‑significant levels.
The project sponsor and supporters also defended the MND. Melinda Sarjapour for Frontier Development Group said appellants’ submissions relied on speculation rather than substantial evidence and noted the MND and technical appendices prepared by independent consultants. Labor representatives urged the board to affirm the MND to avoid construction delays that would cost union jobs.
After rebuttals and board discussion, Supervisor Sauter moved to affirm the FMND and table related items. The board voted 10–0 to approve Item 39 and table Items 40 and 41. The board’s action affirms the planning commission’s environmental finding; the project will continue through subsequent planning and permitting steps where DBI and other departments will review site‑level technical compliance and mitigation.
