Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Amendment Trinity Plaza topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trinity Plaza general-plan amendment fails after split votes; Land Use Committee had recommended 'do not pass'
Summary
The Board of Supervisors rejected (failed to pass) a proposed set of general-plan and height-and-bulk amendments for the Trinity Plaza special use district after a split vote. The Land Use Committee had recommended the board not pass the proposal to allow more time for review.
SAN FRANCISCO — A proposed general-plan amendment and related height-and-bulk changes for the Trinity Plaza special use district failed to pass the Board of Supervisors on Nov. 7 after the board registered tied and split votes following extended debate.
Why it matters: The proposal would have amended the General Plan map and height-and-bulk classifications for a multi-parcel area referenced as the proposed Trinity Plaza special use district and would have adopted findings of consistency with Planning Code §101.1 priority policies. Supporters said the measure had been recommended by the Planning Commission; opponents argued that outstanding issues warranted further committee-level work.
Key points from the hearing: The item had come out of the Land Use and Economic Development Committee with a "do not pass" recommendation. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell urged the full board to vote the committee recommendation and send the item back to the planning committee for more review, citing remaining questions on a large and complex project. Supporters of the item pointed to a prior unanimous Planning Commission recommendation (6–0) and to agreements with tenant and neighborhood stakeholders.
Procedural context and vote: Board members clarified that a "no" vote would support the Land Use Committee recommendation of "do not pass" and that a "yes" vote would adopt the general-plan amendment. After extended discussion and attempts to clarify the form of the vote, the result was a tie (5 ayes, 5 noes), and the ordinance failed.
Implications: Because the board did not adopt the amendment, the Planning Commission recommendation does not by itself change the general plan. The matter may return to committee or to the board at a later date if proponents bring revised materials or if additional hearings occur.
Ending: Supervisors signaled the issue will remain before the city as proponents, opponents and the planning department continue to refine proposals and ask for additional consideration and findings.
