San Francisco Planning Commission Hearing – Thursday, December 4, 2025

The Planning Commission met for an afternoon hearing on Dec. 4, 2025 (speakers generally limited to 3 minutes). The Commission approved multiple procedural and consent items unanimously, received an informational briefing on major 2025 state legislation affecting housing, permitting, and CEQA (including SB 79 implementation timelines), unanimously advanced Mission Bay South redevelopment plan amendments to enable a large 100% affordable project, unanimously approved a large-cap office allocation for 120 Stockton, and ended with a tied vote (3–3) that resulted in a de facto disapproval of a conditional use request related to an illegal residential unit merger at 524–526 Vallejo Street.

Continuance Calendar

• 85 Liberty Street (2025-002242CUA): continued indefinitely (as proposed).
• 2338 19th Ave (2007.0178DRM): continued to Dec. 18, 2025 (as requested).
• 77 Broad St (2023-009469DRP): continued to Jan. 22, 2026 (as requested).
• Vote: Continuances approved 6–0.

Consent Calendar

• 557 Fillmore St (2025-003269CND): Condominium conversion approved.
• Vote: Approved 6–0.

Commission Matters

• Land Acknowledgement: Ramaytush Ohlone acknowledgement read.
• Draft Minutes: Nov. 13 and Nov. 20, 2025 minutes adopted.
  • Vote: 6–0.

2026 Hearing Schedule

• Staff presented a draft 2026 schedule canceling 11 hearings due to holidays/fifth Thursdays, recommending canceling April 9 (Easter period) instead of April 30.
• Commissioners discussed flexibility to reinstate/cancel hearings as needed.
• Vote: 2026 hearing schedule adopted 6–0.

Department Matters – Director’s Announcements

• Mayor’s Family Zoning Plan: Reported it advanced through Land Use Committee and received its first Board of Supervisors reading that week; Director praised cross-departmental staff effort and encouraged using 2026 to unify around shared goals (tenant stability, family support, affordability).
• Budget: Director stated budget guidance would arrive the following week; department was told the coming year would be “worse than last year,” citing H.R.1 and federal budget impacts (specific impacts not yet known).
• PermitSF milestone: Noted Day 200 occurred on Sept. 2; approaching Day 300 in December.

Review of Past Events – Board of Supervisors (Legislative Update)

• Inclusionary waiver ordinance (Supervisor Melgar): Land Use Committee forwarded positively; included Planning Commission’s prior modifications (explicitly prohibiting condo conversions of units produced under the program; clarifying minimum requirements for land dedication alternative). Additional committee amendments included limiting eligibility to certain districts/65-foot height limits in specified neighborhoods and requiring tracking/reporting in housing inventory reporting.
• Tenant protections for residential demolitions/renovations (Supervisor Cheyenne Chen): Continued to Dec. 8 due to substantive amendments; staff reported ~8 public commenters, all in strong support.
• Central Neighborhoods Large Residence SUD (Supervisor Mandelman): Forwarded as committee report, synced with Family Zoning.
• Family Zoning Plan package: Land Use Committee forwarded items 2–1 with Supervisor Cheyenne Chen voting no; public comment reported at ~25 speakers with mixed support/oppose.
• Full Board:
  • Family zoning plan package passed first reading.
  • A last-minute amendment by Supervisor Connie Chan to exempt all rent-controlled housing from the local program failed 7–4 (Walton, Chan, Chin, Fielder voted yes).
  • The overall family zoning plan package passed on the same 7–4 split.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Georgia Schutish:
  • Asked during continuance calendar what would happen during continuance (referenced SB 330).
  • Later submitted a Wall Street Journal article about office-to-housing conversion (New York City) as potentially relevant to zoning and SB 72.
  • On the 524 Vallejo item, emphasized the importance of strong tenant protection review practices and argued evidence suggested multiple legal units existed.
• Tom Radulovich (Livable City): Urged compliance with SB 1425 (2022) requiring open space element updates for equity, climate resilience, and rewilding; cited Jan. 1, 2026 deadline and argued disparities can affect life expectancy (noting some public health framing that zip code can correlate with up to 10 years difference in life expectancy).

SB 79 and 2025 State Legislation Update (Informational)

• Presenters: Lisa Gluckstein (Planning legislative staff), Kate Connor (Planning), Lisa Gibson (CEQA), Sarah Richardson (housing/resilience), plus staff Q&A including Joshua Switzky.
• Key themes: mid-year CEQA reforms via budget trailer bills (effective immediately), stronger enforcement mechanisms, and modest limits placed on density bonus law.

Housing enforcement / permitting (selected bills):

• AB 712: Allows developers to recover attorney’s fees and seek financial penalties for local violations of housing laws; extends statute of limitations; prohibits indemnification clauses shielding agencies.
• SB 786: Requires HCD compliance review when jurisdictions miss housing element implementation deadlines; extends certain rezoning timelines under court order; makes some general plan compliance orders immediately appealable.
• SB 808: Creates strict judicial timelines for challenged housing permit denials (maximum 75 days).
• AB 253: Allows third-party plan checks if local review exceeds 30 business days; reporting required in annual housing element progress reports.
• AB 1308: Requires inspections for 1–10 unit projects within 10 business days after notice; missing deadline treated as a Housing Accountability Act violation.
• AB 920: Requires large cities to create centralized digital permitting portals by 2028 (staff noted PermitSF/OpenGov work aligns).
• AB 130: Freezes local building code changes that make housing codes more restrictive until 2031 unless justified by specified health/safety criteria.

Housing bills affecting non-residential components:

• AB 838: Excludes projects with hotel uses from Housing Accountability Act protections (hotel portion).
• AB 87: Says local governments aren’t required to grant density bonus concessions/incentives enabling hotel uses.
• SB 92: Caps commercial FAR in density-bonus projects at 2.5× base FAR.

Adaptive reuse:

• AB 507: Creates ministerial adaptive reuse streamlining for conversions to residential/mixed-use; operative July 2026; not subject to CEQA or discretionary entitlements; includes affordability requirements, fee exemptions, and labor standards; limits design standards that require altering the existing building.

CEQA trailer bills (effective July 1):

• AB 130: New statutory CEQA exemption for certain urban infill housing; projects must be approved/disapproved within 30 days after required tribal consultation concludes; wage standards generally not required for projects up to 85 feet except 100% affordable (as presented).
• SB 131: “Near-miss” CEQA streamlining limiting review to effects caused by the condition that disqualified a project from an exemption.
• SB 131: Exempts certain housing-element-implementing rezonings from CEQA (with limitations).

SB 79 (Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act):

• Effective date: July 1, 2026.
• Core requirement: Minimum height/density standards within 1/2 mile of qualifying transit stops (Tier 1 heavy rail such as BART/Caltrain; Tier 2 light rail/frequent bus in dedicated lanes).
• Zoning ranges (as presented): Heights 5–9 stories; densities 80–160 units/acre in concentric radii (within 200 feet, 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile).
• Exemptions: Temporary exemptions (expiring 2032) for parcels meeting specified conditions (e.g., zoning already ≥ 50% of SB 79 density; sea level rise vulnerability; state low-resource areas; parcels on local historic register as of Jan. 1, 2025). Permanent exemptions include certain industrial employment hubs and parcels more than a mile walk from transit.
• Local alternative plan: Allowed if total net capacity in SB 79 geographies is equal/greater than SB 79 and all parcels allow at least 50% of SB 79 densities. Staff stated San Francisco intends to pursue this (building on the family zoning plan).

Commissioner discussion highlights (positions/concerns):

• Commissioner Imperial: Requested parcel-level analysis of areas below the 50% threshold and emphasized robust community engagement; staff replied more detailed parcel/zoning “delta” analysis would be provided.
• Commissioner Moore: Asked about overlap with Priority Equity areas and about density bonus interaction; staff stated density bonus can apply but SB 79 does not require exceeding SB 79 height limits.
• Commissioner Williams: Expressed concern that state bills felt “punitive” and lacked funding for affordable housing; raised infrastructure impact concerns.
• Commissioner McGarry: Strongly favored local control via family zoning plan over SB 79, arguing SB 79 would reduce city control and potentially concentrate impacts.

Discussion Item – Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan Amendments (Block 4E) (2025-004714GPR)

• Project described by staff/OCII: Mission Bay South Block 4E, a one-acre site on Third Street, proposed as a 100% affordable project in two buildings / two phases:
  • Phase 1: 165 units, height to 160 feet.
  • Phase 2: 233 units, proposed 225 feet (amendment would enable up to 250 feet for the north-side structure).
  • Total: 398 units.
  • Affordability: 30%–95% AMI range; 80 units set aside for families experiencing homelessness (supported by local operating subsidy program).
  • Family-sized mix: Approximately 25% 1BR, 50% 2BR, 25% 3BR; Phase 2 includes five 4BR and two 5BR units.
  • Transportation/parking: 88 on-site parking spaces plus secure bicycle parking; adjacent to T-Third/Mission Rock stop and near regional transit.
  • Certificate of Preference (COP): OCII stated the project prioritizes COP holders.
• Plan constraints requiring amendment: Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan cap of 3,440 units and 160-foot height limit.
• Requested amendments: Increase unit cap by 250 and allow height up to 250 feet to accommodate Phase 2.
• CEQA: OCII presented reliance on AB 1449 (effective Jan. 2024) CEQA exemption pathway for certain 100% affordable projects (as presented).

Public testimony (positions):

• Housing Action Coalition (Whit Turner): Supported amendments; argued Mission Bay is suitable for added height/density and transit/service-rich.
• Mission Bay resident Peter Brandon: Expressed concern about high cost per unit; cited Mayor Lurie/Tipping Point comparisons (e.g., $377,000/unit vs up to $1.2 million/unit for city-led projects, as stated); urged comparative cost analysis and questioned financing feasibility.
• Mission Bay resident Samantha Froher: Urged more geotechnical/environmental review; raised concerns about sinking/soft soils and sea level risk; requested broader environmental/geotechnical survey and questioned building height necessity.

Commission action:

• Commissioners broadly expressed support, citing family-sized units, COP prioritization, resource-rich location, and 100% affordability.
• Vote: General Plan conformity findings and recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors approved 6–0.
• Next steps (OCII timeline): Legislation to be introduced at Board of Supervisors “next Tuesday” (date not stated in transcript); Phase 1 financing during 2026 with construction start early 2027; Phase 2 financing during 2027 with construction start early 2028.

Discussion Item – 120 Stockton St Office Allocation (2020-0110101OFA)

• Recusal: Commissioner Campbell recused due to employer (Gensler) serving as architect of record; recusal approved 6–0.
• Staff summary: Request for large-cap office allocation up to 111,660 sq ft at 120 Stockton (O’Farrell/Stockton, C-3-R). Proposal converts up to 61,661 sq ft of existing retail to office on top of existing 49,999 sq ft of office; no exterior work. Staff stated the allocation would capture “just shy of 10%” of large-cap availability.
• Sponsor (Ruben Junius & Rose, Tuya Catalano; property owner Todd Saunders): Described the former Macy’s Men’s building transformation (approvals in April 2018; construction late 2018 to late 2022). Argued upper-floor retail is difficult to lease and flexibility to pursue larger office tenants (in the ~100,000 sq ft range) would support Union Square revitalization while keeping retail predominant (stated split if approved: ~53% retail / 47% office, about 130,000 sq ft retail and ~110,000 sq ft office).
• Public comment: None.
• Commission action: Approved (with conditions referenced by the chair) 5–0 (Campbell recused).

Discussion Item – 524–526 Vallejo St / 4–4A San Antonio Pl Conditional Use (Section 317) (2024-011561CUA)

• Request: Legalize merger of three dwelling units into one and reinstate a fourth unit by adding a studio behind the garage; effectively would legalize a net loss of two units compared to the four-unit legal status described by staff.
• Staff findings: Building originally (1907) had two flats; two unauthorized units were legalized 2013–2016; at some point 2016–2022 all four units were merged without authorization; enforcement case opened Jan. 2022. Staff stated rent-control status cannot be definitively determined by Planning (Rent Board jurisdiction) but assumed units are likely rent controlled due to building age.
  • Letters: 9 support letters and 5 opposition letters (including two former tenants, a neighbor, Chinatown Community Development Center, and another member of public).
  • Department recommendation: Denial, citing Housing Element policies and the need to avoid loss of existing housing while meeting the city’s 82,000-unit housing goal.
• Project sponsor/owners (Caitlin Holloway & Ben Ramirez) and architect (Stephen Sutro): Argued the four-unit condition existed “on paper” and the as-built functioned as a single-family home for years; stated reinstating four units would be infeasible, require major reconstruction, and could displace their family; requested approval for a two-unit outcome (family unit + studio). Cited a prior case (1090 Randolph) as a similar fact pattern.

Public testimony (positions):

• Opposition:
  • Jerry Durantler: Supported denial; argued records show four units existed and raised concerns about unresolved enforcement and unpermitted work (including decks) at other nearby properties.
  • Teresa Flandrick (North Beach Tenants Committee): Supported denial; referenced former tenants’ letters describing displacement and argued against setting a precedent that could encourage illegal mergers.
  • Georgia Schutish: Supported strong tenant-protection-oriented review; noted evidence suggesting multiple units existed.
• Support: Multiple neighbors/friends expressed support for owners, emphasizing good faith purchase, community ties, and desire to keep a family in San Francisco (including Jamie Vigil, Kevin Liu, Alex Knorr, Susan Taylor, and Lindsay Liu).

Commission deliberation and votes:

• Commissioners expressed sympathy for current owners while emphasizing policy concerns about loss of (likely) rent-controlled units and precedent.
• Commissioner Campbell proposed exploring a potential alternative approach (discussed as restoring units upon sale); a motion to continue to Dec. 18, 2025 failed 3–3.
• A motion to disapprove then resulted in a 3–3 tie (Campbell, McGarry, Williams voted yes on disapproval; Imperial, Moore voted yes; President Soh voted no), which led to a de facto disapproval due to lack of a majority for approval.

Key Outcomes

• Continuances approved (Items 1, 13, 14): 6–0.
• Consent calendar approved (557 Fillmore condo conversion): 6–0.
• Draft minutes adopted (Nov. 13 & Nov. 20, 2025): 6–0.
• 2026 hearing schedule adopted (11 cancellations proposed): 6–0.
• Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan amendments for Block 4E (100% affordable; raise unit cap + allow height up to 250 feet): Approved 6–0 for General Plan conformity findings and recommendation to Board of Supervisors.
• 120 Stockton office allocation (Prop M large-cap up to 111,660 sq ft; convert 61,661 sq ft retail to office): Approved 5–0 (Campbell recused).
• 524 Vallejo conditional use (unit merger/legalization request): De facto disapproved following a 3–3 tie vote on a motion to disapprove; motion to continue to Dec. 18, 2025 failed 3–3.