Commission approves San Francisco Golf Club maintenance facility with conditions after community outcry

The Planning Commission approved a conditional use authorization (CUA) for a maintenance facility at the San Francisco Golf Club on Feb. 13, 4–2, after heated public comment from parents and staff at the adjacent St. Thomas More School and revisions from the project sponsor.

Planning staff described the project as a request to establish an approximately 19,100‑square‑foot single‑story maintenance building to serve the San Francisco Golf Club, with a 23‑space surface parking lot, administrative offices, storage and maintenance for mowers, carts and equipment. “The project before you was a request for a conditional use authorization to establish an approximately 19,100 square foot maintenance facility for an existing golf course operated and used by the San Francisco Golf Club,” planner Kurt Boaten told commissioners.

The project was continued from earlier hearings to allow the sponsor to consult the school and neighbors. The sponsor returned with design changes including increasing the building setback from the northern property line from 20 feet to 40 feet, reducing building height by 2 feet to 23 feet at the storage portion, and moving administrative spaces closer to the school while relocating equipment storage further west. The sponsor also offered a potential enlargement of the preschool play area on club land by about 1,800 square feet.

Despite the changes, parents, teachers and the school principal urged denial. “We still do not understand why a nearly 20,000 square foot megastructure next to our school campus and outdoor preschool play area is only the viable solution,” Saint Thomas More principal David Greenbaum said, speaking on behalf of hundreds of families who submitted petitions and letters of opposition.

Project counsel and architects said the design removed chemical and fertilizer storage from the new facility, created a fire‑rated, ventilated room for battery charging, increased sprinkler coverage and oriented equipment openings away from the school. “After the hearing, we immediately began reworking the plans, creating more distance between the buildings, and reconfiguring the space in response to the concerns raised by the community,” project sponsor John Kevlin said.

Commissioner deliberations highlighted contrasting views on feasibility of alternative sites, construction impacts and child safety. Commissioner Williams said the project sponsor’s revisions were not adequate to address the school’s concerns, citing airborne particulate and hazardous materials storage as outstanding issues; he moved to deny the CUA. After that motion failed 2–4, another motion to approve the project with added conditions passed 4–2.

The approved conditions direct staff to (1) work with the Department of Public Health on additional construction dust and particulate mitigation measures, (2) recommend a review of fire‑safety egress at the shared fence line and (3) report back on those measures. Commissioners also sought commitments from the sponsor to coordinate construction timing with the school calendar when feasible and to pursue improvements to school outdoor space. The commission recorded four yes votes from Commissioners Campbell, McGarry, Braun and President So, with Commissioners Williams and Moore voting no.

The project record includes community letters alleging CEQA review should be required because of potential impacts to children and a state‑listed plant; the department found no need for further CEQA analysis based on the submitted materials. The commission’s approval is a land‑use entitlement; construction and building permits remain subject to further departmental review and conditions.