Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board sustains mayor's veto reversing Mission Street height change after staff typo
Summary
Supervisors debated a planning commission and land‑use committee decision on height limits for two Mission Street parcels; a staff typographical error and broader process concerns led to a veto that the board sustained.
The Board of Supervisors debated and sustained the mayor’s veto of an ordinance that would have amended the zoning map to change height and bulk designations for two Mission Street parcels — the New Mission Theatre and the El Capitan Theatre sites.
Planning Department staff told the board the change stemmed from a clerical error. Ken Rich of the Planning Department said the planning commission initially recommended 85‑foot height districts for Mission Street. After subsequent land‑use hearings, the committee recommended returning most Mission Street segments to existing levels but retaining an 85‑foot special height district for the two parcels in question. Rich said staff made a typographical error, inserting 85 feet into legislation where the board had intended 65 feet for the New Mission parcel; he apologized for the mistake.
Board members debated both the legal implications and the planning process. Several supervisors said they wanted more corridor‑wide planning and broader community involvement rather than spot zoning one or two properties. Supervisor Maxwell and Supervisor Campos urged more work by the Planning Department and an extended process; Maxwell said, “we recognized that there needed to be more work on this Mission Street corridor.”
Others framed the dispute as political. Supervisor Daley criticized the politics around the item and raised concerns about relationships between developers, fundraisers and elected officials; during his remarks he described the situation as the “worst pay to play development deal” he had seen and said the politics surrounding the item were “ugly.”
Deputy City Attorney Sheryl Adams explained the legal posture: “The document that's in the file and the document that is before the board and that is passed is the controlling document,” she said, noting that the board must act on the version in the public file rather than attempting post‑hoc corrections of drafting errors.
After debate the board recorded a roll call and the president announced the mayor’s veto was sustained. The matter will return to the Planning Department for the follow‑up work members requested: Ken Rich told supervisors the department expects to return with a corridor proposal within roughly six months of the ordinance’s effective date.
