Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves technical code corrections with amendment requiring Planning consultation
Summary
The commission voted unanimously to forward a Planning Code Corrections ordinance to the Board of Supervisors with amendments clarifying height/bulk language, SRO treatment and adding 'planning department consultation' to a provision allowing the City Attorney to make non-substantive changes during Board processing.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Commission voted Aug. 13 to recommend the Board of Supervisors approve the 2015 Planning Code Corrections ordinance — a staff‑initiated package of technical fixes that update cross‑references, correct omissions and clarify language in multiple code articles.
Aaron Starr of the Planning Department outlined five proposed modifications that resulted from meetings with neighborhood groups, including added clarifying language to height/bulk limits in table 209.1, references to planning code sections 260 and 261, and removing a proposed change to rear-yard treatment for SROs. Staff also proposed refined language on the on‑site affordable housing alternative and asked that the City Attorney be authorized to make additional non‑substantive technical corrections as the ordinance moves to the Board of Supervisors.
Public commenters — notably Rose Hilson and Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods members — objected to Recommendation Number 5, arguing it could become a 'blank check' that enables substantive changes without public notice. Deputy City Attorney Susan Cleveland Knowles told the commission that any substantive changes at the Board would require additional notice and hearings under the Brown Act and that an internal review within the City Attorney’s Office would check proposed non‑substantive edits.
Commissioners debated whether to include Planning Department consultation language to clarify practice. The commission added an amendment specifying consultation with Planning staff and voted 5‑0 to forward the ordinance with the modification.
The item now goes to the Board of Supervisors for its review and potential final adoption.
