Planning Commission agrees to study lifting 75‑room hotel cap in MUO zone after split debate

The San Francisco Planning Commission voted 4–2 on May 2 to initiate a Planning Code text amendment that would remove a 75‑room cap on tourist hotels in the city’s Mixed Use Office (MUO) zoning district and send the proposal back to staff for refined alternatives and outreach.

Planning staff presented the proposal as an initiation only — not a final decision — to amend sections of the planning code including Table 842.49 to delete the automatic prohibition on hotels with 75 rooms or more and to clarify that hotels of any size could be allowed in MUO with conditional use authorization. "Initiation does not involve a decision on the substance of the amendments," Sophie Hayward, planning staff, told the commission.

The item drew sustained public comment from neighborhood and business representatives. Toby Levy of the South Park Improvement Association argued the change could "effectively make it any other downtown district" and urged that large hotels be specifically zoned rather than allowed across broad swaths of MUO. Jim Meeco of Western SoMa warned the MUO designation can create "too many incompatibilities" and urged a narrower approach.

Representatives for a specific hotel project across from the ballpark said the cap created an entitlement problem for a previously approved 130‑room hotel. "We are seeking some way to get this hotel that everyone thinks is a good idea ... to be able to be built," a representative for the project said, urging initiation so staff and neighbors can craft a site‑specific solution.

Commissioners split on the proper scope. Several members said the 75‑room limit appeared arbitrary and had been carried over from an older SSO district during prior rezoning, while others said the change was premature without a broader Central Corridor land‑use study. A motion not to initiate the amendment failed on a 3–3 tie. An amended motion to initiate — directing staff to return with alternatives and seek input from groups including SF Travel and hotel industry stakeholders — passed 4–2, with Commissioners Moore and Seguaya voting against.

Under the direction approved by the commission, staff will return with a more detailed description of the MUO district, geographically narrower alternatives if desired, a discussion of hotel‑development trends, and outreach to industry and labor groups. The Commission set the earliest possible adoption hearing date on or after May 23.

The vote opens a formal public process: any hotel with more than 75 rooms in the MUO would still require conditional use authorization and the commission emphasized that height, FAR and bulk controls remain unchanged by the initiation.

What happens next: staff will craft alternatives and a public outreach plan, then return to the commission for a noticed adoption hearing on or after May 23.