Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission backs removing numeric limits on eating/drinking uses from general plan, keeps calculations in code

San Francisco Planning Commission · December 1, 2016
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission recommended removing fixed numeric percentages for eating‑and‑drinking establishments from the Commerce & Industry element and relying on the planning code for specific calculations; commissioners voted 6–1 to approve staff's amended language after debate over 'should not be permitted' wording.

The San Francisco Planning Commission on Dec. 1 recommended amendments to the Commerce & Industry element of the general plan that remove specific numeric caps on eating and drinking establishments from the general plan and keep the precise concentration calculations in the planning code.

Aaron Starr of the Planning Department told commissioners the change is intended to clarify the roles of the general plan (policy statements) and the planning code (implementation details). The committee had worked with neighborhood stakeholders, made edits to address local concerns and forwarded a revised ordinance with staff support.

Commission discussion focused on a sentence in the revised language that read, in effect, that eating and drinking establishments that produced an overconcentration 'should not be permitted.' Commissioner Johnson and others argued that the blanket phrasing could eliminate necessary discretion for mitigating circumstances and that discretionary findings and project‑level review should remain available. Staff and other commissioners said removing the sentence would preserve flexibility and keep the implementing calculations in the planning code.

Commissioner Johnson moved to strike the sentence; the motion passed on a roll call with Commissioner Moore voting no. The transcript records the final vote as 6–1 in favor of the staff recommendation as modified.

Why it matters: The action shifts numeric specificity out of the general plan into the planning code, giving planners and decision makers more procedural flexibility while leaving substantive concentration calculations to implementing regulations.

Next steps: The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded as part of the local legislative process and the ordinance language will be considered by the Board of Supervisors and incorporated into the planning code as appropriate.