Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff reports Supervisor Dorsey ordinance modifies MUO health-service controls; Board amends golf-course maintenance facility approval
Summary
Planning Department reported on a Supervisor-led ordinance to amend mixed-use office district controls for health service and reproductive health uses; staff also summarized Board of Supervisors action resolving appeals to an approved maintenance facility at the San Francisco Golf Course, noting additional construction and dust-mitigation limits.
City planning staff updated the commission May 22 on a proposed ordinance from Supervisor Dorsey's office that would amend mixed-use office (MUO) district controls for health-service uses, and on recent Board of Supervisors action on appeals to a maintenance facility at the San Francisco Golf Course.
Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs for the Planning Department, said the proposed ordinance would eliminate certain retail size limits and retail-ratio requirements for health-service uses in the MUO district, and would include reproductive health clinics within a proposed exemption to implement Proposition O. He said the supervisor incorporated recommended language to include reproductive health clinics and to apply removal of retail ratio and use-size limits east of Seventh Street only; the ordinance was amended to remove use-size limits for health-service and reproductive health clinics within the MUO east of Seventh.
Starr also reported that the Board of Supervisors considered two appeals related to a maintenance facility project at 1310 Haniford Boulevard (a CEQA appeal and a conditional-use appeal). He said the CEQA appeal was withdrawn after the applicant and appellant agreed on amendments, but because the appeals were noticed the hearing proceeded. The supervisors amended the commission's adopted motion to add construction-related limits, dust-mitigation measures and a requirement to design and install an external alarm system to provide audio and visual warnings if a smoke or fire alarm is activated in the building.
Starr said the department's review found no validity to the appellant's core claim that the commission erred in finding the project necessary or desirable or consistent with the general plan, and noted the commission had previously continued the project several times, conducted site visits and received additional information.
Starr concluded by noting the item was amended and continued to June 2 at the Board for further consideration of substantive amendments.
