Planning Commission approves San Francisco Golf Club maintenance facility with conditions after months of opposition

The Planning Commission on Feb. 13 approved a conditional use authorization (CUA) allowing the San Francisco Golf Club to build an approximately 19,100-square-foot maintenance and storage facility adjacent to St. Thomas More School, voting 4-2 with Commissioners Williams and Moore opposed. The approval included supplemental direction to staff to review fire-safety egress at the shared fence line and to work with the Department of Public Health on additional dust- and particulate-mitigation measures during construction.

Planning staff presented the project as a consolidation and modernization of maintenance operations on the 163-acre course. Kurt Bowden of the Planning Department said the proposal moves the structure farther from the school, reduces the building footprint from about 20,060 square feet to 19,100 square feet, lowers the maximum building height from 25 feet to 23 feet, and relocates administrative spaces to the side nearest the course while placing equipment storage on the western side away from the school. Staff reported the sponsor had removed fertilizer and chemical storage from the proposal and that tanks would remain in their original location off-site.

John Kevlin, representing the San Francisco Golf Club, told the commission the sponsor had responded to earlier requests to engage the school community, revised the design to increase setbacks and reduce height and footprint, and offered an area of club land that could expand the school's preschool play area by about 1,800 square feet. Architect Daniel Robson described a ventilated, fire-rated room for battery charging and said the total battery capacity anticipated for electrification would be comparable to fewer than four electric vehicles; Robson said the building is non-combustible, sprinklered and monitored.

The school community and many parents urged the commission to deny the project or continue the matter for more analysis. Public commenters included St. Thomas More principal David Greenbaum, preschool staff and dozens of parents who raised concerns about construction dust, particulate matter, proximity to children's outdoor play areas, battery and fuel storage, and the adequacy of outreach and alternatives. Several medical and environmental commenters urged additional health and environmental review; opponents also argued that alternative sites on the club property had not been adequately developed.

Supporters of the project included the Real Property Support Corporation (which owns property used by the school) and union representatives who said the club's workers lacked adequate indoor break and maintenance space. Commissioners debated the adequacy of the sponsor's outreach and whether the sponsor had sufficiently explored alternate locations on the golf course. Several commissioners who supported approval said the sponsor's revisions addressed many prior concerns, particularly operational changes that keep noisy and vehicle-oriented activities distant from the school. Commissioners opposed cited unresolved safety and environmental concerns and said the sponsor had not proven that nearby alternative sites were infeasible.

Commissioner Williams moved to deny the CUA; that motion failed on a 2-4 vote. An alternate motion to approve the project with conditions passed 4-2. Conditions included staff direction to review fire-safety egress at the shared fence line, for the applicant to work with the Department of Public Health and the city's construction-management authorities to require additional dust-control measures beyond the standard construction requirements, and a commitment by the sponsor to coordinate construction timing with the school when feasible. The approval also included standard code-compliance requirements and noted that the sponsor had removed on-site fertilizer storage and limited fuel handling.

The record before the commission contained approximately 25 letters of opposition and a virtual community meeting held Feb. 11. The sponsor said the most intense period of construction would be coordinated to minimize impacts and that much of the structure would be assembled on top of the foundation, shortening noisy periods. Staff concluded the project met planning-code findings and recommended approval on balance; the commission adopted the recommendation with the additional conditions described above.

The applicant and staff will prepare required permits and coordinate with fire, building and public-health reviewers during the building-permit stage.