Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Life Science topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends removing life-science special-use district, adds grandfathering for projects with applications on file
Summary
The commission backed a planning-code amendment to eliminate the life science and medical special-use district and remove the Industrial Protection Zone exemption, while adding a grandfathering clause to protect projects with active applications as of the hearing date.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend changes to the city's zoning code that would eliminate the life science and medical special-use district and remove the Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) special provisions that exempt certain uses from underlying UMU and PDR rules. The amendment, introduced by staff and sponsored by Supervisor Walton, would substitute underlying UMU and PDR controls for the SUD's current exemptions.
Planning Department staff told commissioners the change clarifies overlapping land-use definitions and better protects production, distribution and repair (PDR) uses in the Eastern Neighborhoods. "The ordinance reduces overlap and confusion between land-use definitions," Planning Department staff member Jeremy Shaw said, noting life-science growth outside the SUD and the IPZ's references to now-outdated M zoning.
Public commenters were split: neighborhood advocates and PDR supporters welcomed stronger protections for industrial uses, while developers and project sponsors asked for a grandfathering provision to avoid disrupting projects that have already progressed through entitlement processes. "If it's prohibited by the time they get to their permits, that project will not be able to move forward after going through the entire entitlement process," an industry representative told the commission.
Commissioners agreed to staff's recommended modifications but also to include a grandfathering clause for any project application on file as of the hearing date so that projects that relied on the previous zoning would not be retroactively invalidated. On that motion, Commissioner Tanner voted in favor and the motion passed 6-0.
The commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as part of the formal ordinance process; staff and commissioners said they will continue to coordinate outreach with neighborhood groups and project sponsors as the item moves forward.
