Board approves conditional-use amendments, ending appeal of Junipero Serra maintenance building with protections for adjacent school

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on May 20 approved an amended conditional‑use authorization and related actions for a proposed 19,100‑square‑foot maintenance and facility building at 1310 Junipero Serra Boulevard, after the project sponsor and community representatives reached a settlement that adds construction‑period protections for the adjacent St. Thomas More School.

The action followed a weeklong appeal process in which the Planning Department’s categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was affirmed and the board approved a revised conditional‑use authorization with additional conditions to reduce construction impacts on the school and neighborhood.

The agreement, described in the meeting by Ryan Patterson, attorney for Friends of Saint Thomas More, and John Kevlin representing the San Francisco Golf Club (the project sponsor parties), adds specific controls covering construction traffic routing, fuel and chemical storage, dust and particulate monitoring, wall strengthening, stormwater controls and an enhanced fire suppression strategy focused on lithium‑ion batteries. The board also adopted a construction‑era alarm requirement along the building’s northern elevation to provide audio and visual warnings if a smoke or fire alarm is activated in the new building.

Supervisor Melgar moved the amendment that the board adopted. Key construction conditions read into the record require the project sponsor, during construction, to make good‑faith efforts to route construction traffic away from St. Thomas More Way; conduct tree removals outside typical school instructional hours or during summer recess; apply water to active earth‑moving areas at least three times per day; comply with health‑code dust‑control measures; establish and publicize an on‑site hotline for fugitive‑dust complaints; develop a response plan for construction‑related emergencies and unanticipated discharges; comply with any DBI and Fire Department requirements identified during plan review (including those related to fire prevention and suppression); and meet San Francisco Public Utilities Commission stormwater requirements.

Board members said the negotiated conditions were designed to balance park operations and maintenance needs with student safety at the neighboring school. The CEQA exemption appeal (items 22–25 on the agenda) was resolved in court/agency process terms by withdrawing one appeal and affirming the Planning Department’s categorical exemption (item 23). The board approved the amended conditional‑use authorization (item 28 as amended) and approved a companion motion (item 29); it tabled the planning‑commission affirmation (item 27) for further documentation.

The roll call on the final motion recorded 11 ayes and no nays.

What the board approved is limited to the conditions adopted and the approvals on the record; no construction may proceed until the applicable building permits and department clearances (DBI, Fire, SPU) are obtained and any conditions are met.

The negotiated protections were presented to the board as contractual conditions to be incorporated in the conditional‑use approval; the transcript shows the project parties and supervising city staff agreed to request that several of those terms be added as conditions of approval.

The board took the actions during its 3 p.m. special orders after a brief public‑comment period in which no speakers opposed the settlement on the record.