Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Umu Mission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors Advance Ordinance to Limit Office Uses in Mission UMU Zones Amid Debate Over 2300 Harrison
Summary
An ordinance to bar new office uses in Mission UMU areas (with landmark exceptions and conditional ground‑floor services) was amended and forwarded to the full Board after heated discussion about impacts on in‑pipeline projects such as 2300 Harrison; developers sought grandfathering while community groups and artists urged protections for PDR and nonprofits.
Supervisor Hillary Ronan proposed changing the urban mixed use (UMU) designation in the Mission to prohibit future office uses on upper floors, arguing office development displaces artists, makers and light industry and undermines the city’s housing objectives.
"Office does not serve the purpose of a buffer nor does it encourage residential development," Ronan said, describing the proposal to limit office uses within the Mission area plan while allowing conditional client‑facing ground‑floor offices in specific cases and landmark exceptions.
The proposal prompted sustained debate over a particular project at 2300 Harrison, which is in the appeals pipeline. Developers and their counsel pressed for a grandfathering amendment to protect projects that entered entitlement before the legislation; they warned that changing rules mid‑process would undercut expectations and could halt projects that provide housing and fees. Labor and some housing advocates emphasized the importance of delivering housing and union jobs.
Community residents, artists, manufacturers and nonprofits urged the committee to remove the option for high‑end office conversions that they say have driven displacement in the Mission. Testimony cited widespread loss of PDR spaces and cultural resources and asked supervisors to act to retain those uses.
Supervisor Dean Preston moved an amendment that narrowed the geography to the Mission and clarified other non‑substantive points; the committee adopted the amendment and then voted to forward the ordinance as amended to the full Board with a committee recommendation. Committee members stressed the amendment and Board action should not prejudice any pending quasi‑judicial appeals, and planning staff explained timing: if appeals are heard before the ordinance becomes effective, those projects may proceed unaffected.
Next steps: The ordinance will go to the full Board with the committee’s recommendation and with the record of public comments, developer appeals and labor input. Any project‑specific appeals (notably 2300 Harrison) will determine whether a particular proposal is grandfathered by timing.
