Planning Commission denies conditional use permit for 827 Guerrero Street recovery center

The San Francisco Planning Commission voted unanimously April 9 to deny a conditional use permit for the Alternative to Med Center (ATMC) at 827 Guerrero Street, siding with neighbors and city staff who said the facility had operated in ways that require licensing by state health regulators.

Corey Teague, the department planner, told commissioners staff recommended disapproval after reviewing complaints, agency letters and an ADP inspection that led to a notice of violation. Teague said the Department of Public Health had issued a letter on April 2 concluding the operation was providing services that, in the city's and state regulators’ view, required licensure. The planning department said ongoing uncertainty about the facility’s on-site activities and the difficulty of monitoring an unlicensed operation weighed against a finding that the project was “necessary and desirable” for the neighborhood.

Neighbors urged disapproval during a lengthy public comment period. Jillian Gillette, co‑chair of the San Jose‑Guerrero Coalition to Save Our Streets, described alleged misrepresentations by the project sponsor and called the application “undesirable and incompatible” with the block. Kim Stryker of the Fair Oaks Community Coalition said ATMC began operating without required permits and that state ADP told the operator to cease unlicensed activities. Several neighbors described emergency calls and safety incidents they attribute to the facility's operations.

The project sponsor, represented at the hearing by John McDowell and applicant Lyle Murphy, argued ATMC was a nutritional, residential program and not a medical or detox facility. Murphy and other supporters said the program provides peer support, nutrition programs and off‑site medical referrals, and they submitted letters of support from some former clients and staff. Murphy acknowledged an earlier mistake in communications about a donation cited on a public flyer and said he had stopped some activities after ADP inquiries.

Commissioners pressed the sponsor on inconsistencies in plans, previous representations about bed counts and the source and accuracy of supporting documents. Commissioner Bridal moved to disapprove the conditional use permit; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The formal vote recorded individual ayes from Commissioners Bridal, Lee, Moore, Seguaya, Borden and McGowan.

The denial closes the current application. Staff and the state agencies remain the responsible parties for enforcing licensing and safety requirements; the commission’s denial means the proposed conditional use authorization will not be granted. Neighbors who testified said they expect continued follow‑up from enforcement agencies.