San Francisco Planning Commission Hearing — November 13, 2025

The San Francisco Planning Commission met on Thursday, November 13, 2025 (webinar format) with 6 commissioners present (President Soe, Vice President Moore, Commissioners Braun, Campbell, Imperial, and McGarry) and Commissioner Williams absent. The Commission approved two consent items, heard two conditional use authorizations pulled from consent, considered a Planning Code amendment redefining “family”/“dwelling unit” rules for shared housing, and decided two discretionary review (DR) requests.

Consent Calendar

• Items pulled from consent (for later hearing on regular calendar):
  • Item 2: 555 Fulton Street, Suite B (CUA) — pulled at public request.
  • Item 4: 825 Sansom Street (CUA) — pulled at public request.
• Approved on consent (unanimous):
  • Item 1: 960 Market Street, Unit 421 (CUA) — approved 6-0.
  • Item 3: 2238 Market Street (CUA) — approved 6-0.

Department Matters

• Planning Director Sarah Dennis Phillips announced the second Fillmore Community Action Plan workshop held 6:00–8:00 p.m. that evening at the African American Arts and Culture Complex, with a parallel Zoom event next Tuesday (details on the Planning Department website).

Public Comments & Testimony

• General public comment (non-agenda items):
  • Speaker (name not captured in transcript) urged investigation of alleged code compliance and enforcement issues at 147 Marietta Drive, citing an enforcement notice “on hold since 2019,” permit/inspection timelines (e.g., last inspection stated as December 2024 and special inspections approved November 5), and alleging improper approvals across Planning/DBI.
  • Paul Wormer (speaking for himself) expressed concern/opposition regarding an “upzoning plan,” arguing it could be “gamed” to produce high-end units without inclusionary requirements; he cited examples such as potentially adding “one unit” to obtain height bonus, and asserted that “every three units requires 0.9 to 1.2 below market rate units” based on Planning nexus studies.

Discussion Items

555 Fulton Street, Suite B — Conditional Use Authorization (Item 2; Case 2025-007422)

• Staff (Matthew Chandler, Planning):
  • Noted the published staff report omitted information; provided redlined copies.
  • Request: CUA to exceed principally permitted non-residential use size in the Hayes-Gough NCT controls (trigger at 3,000 sq. ft.). Proposed 7,055 sq. ft. arts activity use in a ground-floor space vacant since 2020 (building completed in 2020).
  • Business: “The Clay Room,” combined pottery and woodworking studio.
  • Stated Class 1 CEQA exemption and no public comment received prior to hearing.
  • Recommended approval with conditions.
• Project sponsor (Jeremy Shaw, Shaw Valley Architects):
  • Confirmed change of use to ~7,000 sq. ft. arts/crafts studio.
  • Stated sponsor contracted with Charles Salter for acoustic separation between commercial space and residential units above.
• Public comment (Jerry Drantler):
  • Requested adding a condition addressing what he described as an expired $49 million building permit and asserted current occupancy may be illegal due to lack of final completion/occupancy; cited a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) and stated the Building Code limits TCO duration to 12 months.
• Commission deliberation:
  • Commissioner Braun supported the arts use but did not want to tie building-wide permit/TCO issues to the ground-floor CUA; encouraged Planning to follow up with DBI.
  • Vice President Moore requested the concern be acknowledged; asked Deputy City Attorney Austin Yang for advice.
  • Deputy City Attorney Yang advised department follow-up with DBI, noting it is an “awkward fit” to control habitability/TCO matters through the land use approval.
  • Director Phillips committed Planning to follow up with DBI and (per discussion) to report/brief later as appropriate.

825 Sansom Street — Conditional Use Authorization (Item 4; Case 2025-008202)

• Staff (Michelle Langley, Planning):
  • Proposed change of use of an existing multi-level public parking garage (built 1922) with a basement containing 96 parking spaces.
  • New uses:
    • Upper level: 31 private fleet EV chargers.
    • Ground level: 18 public EV chargers.
    • Basement: private parking garage with 31 spaces.
  • Net effect: reduction of 16 parking spaces.
  • Zoning: C-2; both private fleet charging and private parking garage require CUA.
  • Historic context: Category A historic resource; contributor to Jackson Square Historic District Extension.
  • Operations described as supporting an “in-house zero-emission fleet,” with dispatch/return daily and secure charging during off-peak hours; stated co-location reduces off-site travel and congestion.
  • Transportation staff found no additional transportation review required, expecting only a “modest increase” in turnover similar to the current garage use.
  • Noted one letter of opposition from Teamsters Joint Council 7.
  • Recommended approval with conditions.
• Project sponsor (Eric Lentz, representing Tesla) and Tesla representative (Michael Hugh):
  • Emphasized separation by floors and separate entrances/egress.
  • Stated basement parking would function as a queue buffer for up to 30 vehicles.
  • Stated Tesla performed a traffic simulation and planned dispatch to avoid peak congestion (described trough around 3–5 p.m.).
  • Provided charging throughput estimate: using “roughly” 48 charger posts / “roughly” 30-minute charging per car, estimating about 96 vehicles per cycle and “roughly” 1–2 vehicles per minute in/out (as characterized in testimony).
• Public comment (Mark Gleason, Teamsters Joint Council 7):
  • Expressed opposition; argued Tesla had not shown why this site was necessary versus industrial areas.
  • Claimed fleet charging serves corporate fleet needs, not neighborhood needs.
  • Raised compatibility concerns with the historic district and asserted 24/7 queuing would be incompatible.
  • Claimed cumulative impacts were not analyzed under CEQA, asserting proximity (~200 feet) to Waymo operations and stating CEQA analysis did not mention Waymo or Tesla.
• Commission deliberation:
  • Commissioner Campbell supported the land-use logic of adapting an existing garage for EV charging and emissions reduction.
  • Commissioner Imperial expressed concern about congestion/robo-taxi circulation, asked for departure time; sponsor stated vehicles would depart around 6 a.m. and return late (referencing ~11 p.m. for returns in sponsor testimony). Imperial suggested a future informational discussion on traffic analysis for emerging AV/robo-taxi impacts.

Planning Code Amendments — “Shared Housing Reform Act” (Item 9; Case 2025-006246 PCA)

• Sponsor’s office (Raynell Cooper, aide to Supervisor Bilal Mahmood):
  • Presented the Shared Housing Reform Act, arguing current “family” definition can make common roommate living arrangements illegal unless criteria such as cooking together are met.
  • Described proposed new definition of “household”, requiring members share expenses and limiting to nine or fewer leases to avoid a loophole around inclusionary requirements that trigger at 10 units (as described).
  • Said a substituted version would be introduced if the Commission recommended approval, including:
    • Removing the nine-lease requirement for existing buildings (keeping it for new construction).
    • Requiring sharing at least one living expense.
    • Requiring residents have 24-hour access to kitchen and bathroom to qualify.
• Planning staff (Aaron Starr, Legislative Affairs):
  • Explained proposal replaces “family” with “household”, removing relationship and shared-meals requirements.
  • Key elements discussed:
    • Nine-lease cap (to distinguish from group housing/inclusionary triggers).
    • Reclassifying small residential care facilities (6 or fewer residents) as residential use and aligning with state law.
    • Allowing groups meeting household definition to occupy dwelling units.
  • Noted sponsor’s proposed amendments (lease definition includes rental agreements/licenses/other contracts; expense sharing clarification; subpoena authority expansion; clerical changes).
  • Department recommended approval with modifications, including:
    • Make all residential care facilities a residential (not institutional) use.
    • Ensure household definition includes single/multi-provider households with dependents.
    • Include sponsor amendments.
    • Monitor implementation and report back three years after effective date (later amended in Commission motion).
• Public comment:
  • Avi (Chinatown CDC) requested continuance for more outreach and deeper analysis; expressed concern the change could weaken ability to prioritize family housing and enable corporate-run shared housing with weaker tenant protections.
  • Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition) expressed support, stating the change modernizes code to reflect how people live and supports equity/fair housing.
• Commission deliberation:
  • Commissioners generally supported modernizing definitions but raised concerns about unintended consequences (e.g., commercialized group housing models).
  • Discussion highlighted potential inclusionary-fee impacts if residential care facilities are treated as residential use; staff indicated they did not intend to subject residential care facilities to inclusionary fees.
  • Vice President Moore raised concerns about rushing and suggested a more incremental approach (expanding definitions rather than overturning) and questioned including residential care facilities in the same legislation.

Discretionary Review — 2867 Green Street (Item 10; Case 2024-011548DRP-02)

• Staff (David Winslow, Planning):
  • DR request related to work exceeding permit scope: raising third-floor roof by 10 inches; NOV issued requiring legalization.
  • Indicated parties had reached an agreement.
• DR requesters’ representatives (Deborah Hawley; Marco Quazzo):
  • Reported a written agreement with sponsor.
  • Submitted revised plans (dated November 12) with two clarifying notations:
    • Roof is unoccupied and no roof deck proposed.
    • Elevations’ heights are inclusive of curbs/lips.
• Commission action:
  • Commission chose to not take DR and approve based on revised drawings (referenced as dated November 13, 2025 during motion/clarification) with the above notations incorporated into the record.
  • President Soe cautioned against last-minute plan submissions becoming common practice.

Discretionary Review — 45 Montclair Terrace (Item 11; Case 2024-005749 DRP)

• Staff (David Winslow, Planning):
  • DR request for demolition of existing single-family home and construction of two dwelling units in RH-1.
  • Site: approx. 61 ft x 85 ft, lateral and upsloping; existing structure Category C (not historic resource).
  • Project described as code-complying and a Housing Accountability Act project; staff stated non-objective Residential Design Guidelines could not be required, and objective standards adopted later were not applicable due to SB 330 vesting/lock-in.
  • CEQA review: site subject to 25-degree slope requirements; preliminary geotech reviewed with further DBI review anticipated; staff archaeologist found no CEQA-significant archaeological resources expected.
  • Staff recommended not taking DR (no exceptional/extraordinary circumstances).
• DR requester testimony (Karen DiGiorgio on behalf of Stephen Sattler/2390 Hyde HOA and neighbors):
  • Sought clarification of demolition scope and compliance with plan check issues; requested Commission direct sponsor to adopt staff-requested revisions and address planning code sections cited (including rear yard, ADU, demolition rules).
  • Cited concerns about narrow street context, alleged deficiencies, and challenged cost/budget assertions (e.g., stated proposed budget was $1.4 million and compared it to per-square-foot estimates).
• Public comment (multiple neighbors):
  • Expressed opposition/concerns about front setback compatibility, construction impacts on a narrow one-lane street, view/light/air impacts, geotechnical risk, potential “gaming” of rules, tourist access impacts near Lombard, and protection of mature cypress/heritage trees.
  • Some speakers asserted the ADU would not serve rental housing needs and described it as a “scam” or primarily for in-house use.
• Project sponsor/architect (Yaku Askew):
  • Stated project is full demolition and replacement with a two-family residence; said project is code-compliant and HAA applies.
  • In rebuttal, stated the project includes 10 ft front setback and 5 ft side yards.
• Legal and zoning clarification:
  • Deputy City Attorney Austin Yang summarized Housing Accountability Act limits on denial/density reduction for code-complying housing.
  • Zoning Administrator Corey Teague explained that after the Constraints Reduction Ordinance, in certain areas (outside specified geography), a full demolition does not require a demolition CUA when the project results in a net unit increase (here, 1 to 2 units).
• Commission deliberation:
  • Several commissioners expressed frustration that state law limited discretion while acknowledging neighbors’ concerns, and strongly encouraged sponsor to continue dialogue and refine design voluntarily.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar:
  • Approved 960 Market St Unit 421 and 2238 Market St CUAs: 6-0.
  • Pulled from consent for separate hearing: 555 Fulton St Suite B and 825 Sansom St.
• 555 Fulton Street, Suite B (CUA): Approved 6-0.
  • Directive/next step (non-binding, discussed): Planning to follow up with DBI regarding concerns raised about TCO/permit finalization for the larger building.
• 825 Sansom Street (CUA): Approved 6-0.
  • Commission discussion flagged interest in future policy/information on traffic analysis for AV/robo-taxi operations.
• Shared Housing Reform Act (Planning Code amendments): Recommended for approval 4-2 (Imperial and Moore No).
  • Approved with staff modifications as further amended by Commission, including:
    • Clarify residential care facilities should be exempt from inclusionary requirements, and encourage sponsor to prevent loopholes where other projects could exploit that exemption.
    • Shorten monitoring/report-back from 36 months to 24 months after effective date.
    • Encourage consideration of Chinatown CDC’s concerns (tenant protections and broader impacts).
• 2867 Green Street (DR): Motion to not take DR and approve with revised plan notations passed 6-0.
• 45 Montclair Terrace (DR): Motion to not take DR and approve passed 4-1 (Imperial No).