San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting – July 24, 2025

The San Francisco Planning Commission met on Thursday, July 24, 2025, to consider continuances, consent calendar items, commission matters, department reports, and four regular calendar items. Key discussions centered on a proposal to waive development impact fees in the Market and Octavia area, the University of San Francisco’s institutional master plan, and two housing projects under state density bonus laws. The meeting lasted from approximately 2:15 PM to after 5:30 PM.

Consent Calendar

• Items 3–7 (conditional use authorizations at 1453 Mission St, 33 Bambury Dr, 405 Howard St, 685 Market St, and 935 Gary St) were approved unanimously on a single roll call vote, with no public requests to pull items.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Continuance Calendar (items 1, 2A, 2B): A resident of 1303 Larkin Street expressed concern about tenant rights and the ability to return at the same rent after proposed project work. The Commission continued the items as requested.
• General Public Comment:
  • Rami Tan, a local architect and property owner at 2755 Sutter Street, noted his property was excluded from the family rezoning upzoning map and urged inclusion and consistency with SB 79.
  • A speaker presented a declaration to the City Attorney regarding an unfulfilled record request for upzoning parcel data, stating the Planning Department had not responded to a July 6 request, and that a Chinatown group also had an unanswered request.
  • Quinton Mackey (Council of Community Housing Organizations) urged the Commission to conduct scenario planning for affordable housing funding, stating that the current zoning map is unclear on how to achieve 20,000 low-income units.
  • A representative from the Van Ness Corridor Neighborhoods Coalition described productive meetings with Planning Department staff and asked that preconceptions about neighborhood groups be avoided.
  • A reasonable accommodation requester praised commissioners for asking the department to discuss area plans and affordability, and urged placing such discussions on future agendas.
• Item 13 (Market & Octavia Fee Waiver): Public comment was divided:
  • Supporters (including Emerald Fund, SF YIMBY, Housing Action Coalition, residents) argued the fees are hindering development, that removing them would unlock 2,700 stalled units, generate property tax revenue, and that citywide fees remain.
  • Opponents (including Market Octavia CAC members, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association, SOMA Filipinas, CCHO) noted the loss of $46 million in funding for affordable housing and community improvements, questioned whether fee removal alone would spur construction, and asked for more community engagement and a continuance.
• Item 14 (USF IMP): One speaker, Olga Miranda (SEIU Local 87), expressed opposition to the master plan because of an ongoing contract dispute with the university, asking for fair wages for janitors.
• Item 16 (1025 Howard St): Speakers from SOMA Filipinas and South of Market Youth and Family SUD opposed the project, citing likely new shadow on Gene Friend Recreation Center (violating Prop K), insufficient affordable housing (7.5% very low-income), and conflict with priority equity geographies. They asked that no waivers be granted for shadow or affordability.

Commission Matters

• Land Acknowledgement read by staff.
• Minutes of July 10, 2025, were adopted unanimously.
• Commission Comments:
  • Commissioner Imperial requested a roadmap to affordability, including site analysis, funding urgency, and a timeline based on RHNA figures.
  • Commissioner Williams asked for a deep dive into existing area plans to understand what worked and what didn’t, especially regarding affordable housing.
  • Vice President Moore raised concerns about EPA changes to air quality standards and urged the environmental department to find new metrics for affected communities.

Department Matters

• Director’s Announcements: Director Sarah Dennis Phillips responded to commissioner comments, noting the difference between zoning capacity and affordability funding. She also:
  • Warned about a phishing scam targeting applicants with fraudulent permit payment requests.
  • Announced the Market Street Visioning Competition winners, on display at the Ferry Building.
  • Reported that the adaptive reuse program has been successful, with developers commending the city’s changes.
  • Noted that the department will return to the office four days a week starting August 18.
• Review of Past Events: Aaron Starr reported that the Land Use Committee advanced Supervisor Engardio’s ordinance on noncomplying structures (with commission-recommended amendments) and that the Fenestration Transparency and Sign Requirements Ordinance passed second read, while the noncomplying structure ordinance passed first read at the Board of Supervisors.

Discussion Items

• Item 13 – Waiving Certain Development Impact Fees in the Market and Octavia Area (Board File No. 250680):

  • Staff from Planning, OEWD, and Supervisor Dorsey’s office presented the ordinance, which would sunset all five area-specific impact fees (both affordable housing and community infrastructure) in the Market and Octavia Plan area and the Van Ness & Market Special Use District, as well as sunset the Market Octavia Community Advisory Committee. Citywide fees would remain. Since 2020, only two residential projects (37 units) have broken ground, while 26 projects (2,700 units) are stalled. The fees represent $20,000–$60,000 per unit. The plan has generated $53 million in improvements to date, but revenue has stalled. Outreach included meetings with the CAC, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association, and other groups.
  • Commissioners debated at length. A motion to continue to September 11 failed 3–4 (Campbell, McGarry, Braun, So opposed; Williams, Imperial, Moore for). A motion to approve with recommendations passed 4–3 (Campbell, McGarry, Braun, So aye; Williams, Imperial, Moore no). The recommendations included a commitment to community engagement over August and a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to consider a partial fee waiver rather than a complete waiver, and to include a sunset provision so that fees could be reinstated.

• Item 14 – University of San Francisco Institutional Master Plan (Informational):

  • The university presented its 10-year IMP, highlighting 2,700 student housing beds, a 45% reduction in drive-alone trips since 2014, and planned projects: renovation of Masonic East (health sciences hub), window replacements, open space improvements, and future academic and residential buildings. Enrollment growth has been below 1% annually.
  • Commissioners praised the plan’s quality and transparency. Vice President Moore found it accurate and complete. Commissioner Braun noted the excellent reporting. Commissioner Williams appreciated learning about the campus. The hearing was closed with no action.

• Item 15 – 926 Natoma Street (Informational):

  • The project proposes demolishing a two-story commercial building and constructing a six-story, six-unit building (one unit affordable at 15% of total) using the state density bonus. No parking is provided. The site is near transit.
  • Commissioners offered suggestions: Vice President Moore asked for 3D context and materials discussion; Commissioner Braun noted that the second stairwell takes significant floor area and that single-stair building code changes could help. Commissioner Campbell supported the infill project and prioritized bikes. Commissioner McGarry noted the affordable unit. No action taken.

• Item 16 – 1025 Howard Street (Informational):

  • The project, under SB 330 and 423 with density bonus, proposes 120 units (40% two-bedroom, 60% one-bedroom) with 9% very low-income affordable housing. The site is in the SOMA Youth and Family SUD. The building would be nine stories, 84 feet, with a request to increase the height limit on half the lot from 65 to 85 feet. No parking is proposed.
  • Commissioners discussed the potential shadow impact on Gene Friend Recreation Center (a Prop K budgeted park). Staff explained that under state density bonus, waivers can be obtained from objective standards like Prop K’s shadow limits, but that the department has not yet received a formal application. Vice President Moore and Commissioner Brown urged the sponsor to engage with community groups. Commissioner Williams criticized state laws that override local protections for priority equity geographies, stating that the project would harm a historically marginalized community.
  • No action was taken; the item was informational only.

Key Outcomes

• Continuances: Items 1 (1303 Larkin St) and 2A/2B (350 Amber Drive) were continued to July 31 and September 25, 2025, respectively.
• Consent Calendar: Items 3–7 were approved unanimously.
• Item 13 (Market & Octavia Fee Waiver): The Commission voted 4–3 to recommend approval with amendments (partial waiver, community engagement, and a sunset clause for reinstatement). The motion to continue failed 3–4. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
• Item 14 (USF IMP): No action required; the informational hearing was closed.
• Item 15 (926 Natoma St): No action; informational only.
• Item 16 (1025 Howard St): No action; informational only. The Commission encouraged the project sponsor to work with the community on shadow and affordability concerns.