Supervisors accept negotiated terms and add safety, dust and fire‑suppression conditions for Junipero Serra maintenance‑building project

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on May 20 accepted negotiated terms between project proponents, neighbors and appellants regarding the proposed maintenance and facility building at 1310 Junipero Serra Boulevard, and approved motions that implement a revised conditional use authorization with added safety and environmental controls.

Background and the appeals The project described by the planning department proposed demolition of nine maintenance and facility structures and construction of a single‑story, roughly 20,000 gross‑square‑foot maintenance building (planning department readout). Two separate appeals were filed: one contested the planning department’s categorical exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the other appealed approval of a conditional use authorization.

Negotiated protections and board action Supervisor Myrna Melgar informed the board that parties had reached an agreement after staff and counsel worked to broker additional protections requested by the neighboring St. Thomas More School and community members. Outside counsel Ryan Patterson, representing Friends of St. Thomas More, summarized the agreed protections to the board. John Kevlin, attorney for the San Francisco Golf Club (a project stakeholder), confirmed the club’s support for the agreement.

The protections the parties asked the board to adopt as conditions included routing and timing restrictions for construction traffic, dust control measures, particulate monitoring, limits on chemical and fuel storage, tree‑removal protections, automatic alarms on the building’s northern elevation to notify the adjacent school of fire or smoke events, wall strengthening, water‑runoff controls and specific requirements for an enhanced fire suppression system for lithium‑ion battery storage.

On the items before the board the clerk identified two parallel sets of motions. The board took these actions: - The CEQA appeal motion (item 23) was approved, and related items 24 and 25 were tabled. (Clerk: item 23 affirmed the planning department’s determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.) - For the conditional‑use appeals (items 26–29), Supervisor Melgar moved to amend item 28 to disapprove the planning commission’s conditional use authorization and to approve a revised conditional use authorization that incorporates the negotiated conditions. The board approved the amendment and then approved item 28 as amended and item 29; item 27 (the planning commission decision as originally presented) was tabled.

What the added conditions require (selected summary) - Construction traffic should be routed to avoid St. Thomas More Way when possible and removal activity should occur outside school instruction hours or during summer recess where feasible. - On active earth‑moving days, water should be applied at least three times to the active work area to control dust; the project sponsor must comply with applicable health‑code dust controls and post a construction hotline for fugitive dust complaints. - The project sponsor must develop an emergency response plan for construction‑related incidents and unanticipated fugitive dust discharges. - Construction drawings must meet requirements imposed by the Department of Building Inspection and the Fire Department, including fire prevention and suppression standards; the project must install an alarm along the building’s northern elevation that provides audio and visual warnings to the adjacent school if a smoke or fire alarm activates in the building. - The project shall comply with SFPUC storm water control requirements and design measures to control water runoff. - The project scope also includes design and installation of an enhanced fire suppression system addressing lithium‑ion battery hazards.

Why it matters The adopted conditions are targeted to protect an adjacent elementary or school site and to address community concerns about dust, noise, construction traffic, runoff and particularly the fire risks associated with lithium‑ion battery storage. By updating the conditional use authorization rather than simply upholding the planning commission’s prior action, the board incorporated negotiated mitigation measures that directly respond to neighbor concerns.

Speakers and participants Speakers who appeared on the record with regard to the negotiations included Supervisor Myrna Melgar (sponsor of the motion to amend), Ryan Patterson (attorney for Friends of St. Thomas More), John Kevlin (counsel for the San Francisco Golf Club), and planning and department staff who worked with the parties. There were no public speakers at the board’s public‑comment call for these appeals; the appellants and project counsel reported they had reached agreement.

Next steps The board’s approvals as amended will be reflected in the conditional use authorization paperwork. Departments named in the conditions—Department of Building Inspection, Fire Department and SFPUC—will review construction drawings and enforce the construction‑period conditions as part of permit review and inspection processes. The planning department will process the revised authorization per the board’s motions.

Ending The board’s approach combined negotiated settlement language with formal conditions on the project’s approvals, aiming to reduce risk for the adjacent school and neighborhood while allowing the city’s maintenance facility project to proceed under the revised, board‑approved terms.