Planning Commission approves conversion of 450 O'Farrell to group housing with conditions amid neighborhood concerns

The San Francisco Planning Commission voted 4–2 to approve a modified plan for 450 O'Farrell Street that converts a previously approved 176‑unit project into group housing, after months of revisions and a daylong hearing that included hours of public comment from neighborhood residents and service providers.

The commission's action conditions approval on the sponsor and staff maximizing balconies where allowed by code, increasing the number of larger group‑housing rooms where feasible, pursuing conversion of ground‑floor retail to group‑housing units if code‑compliant, and working to expand secure Class‑1 bicycle parking (the sponsor and staff will examine whether the project can increase on‑site bike parking up toward 200 spaces). Staff will return to the commission with an informational memorandum documenting the required revisions.

The item before the commission was a request to modify conditions of approval for a previously authorized project at O'Farrell and Shannon Streets. Planning staff said the revision would replace the original 176 dwelling units with 316 group‑housing rooms and up to 632 beds within the approved building envelope and that an addendum to the environmental review found no new environmental impacts requiring further CEQA analysis.

"The department is in support of the modification of conditions of approval as the proposed group housing project is on balance consistent with the general plan, the planning code and the original approval," planner Carly Grove told commissioners.

Project sponsors and the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist, which owns the site, said they redesigned interiors to add more shared kitchens, expanded amenity and outdoor spaces and upgraded ventilation and mechanical systems to improve indoor air quality. "Our new church facility will allow us to fulfill our religious mission to better serve the community," board president Ella Strong said, adding that the project "will build much‑needed new housing." Richard Hannum, the sponsor's design representative, said the team had increased balconies and roof gardens and worked with Project Access to provide on‑site supportive programming.

Opponents raised two broad concerns. Pacific Bay Inn, a neighboring building that houses about 75 people in an unreinforced masonry structure, argued the project's construction activities could pose safety risks and that the addendum did not adequately address those risks. "These tenants could be harmed through extensive excavation on a zero lot line," said Michael Schonefeld, counsel for Pacific Bay Inn, urging a continuance. Planning environmental staff responded that a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and a supplemental letter recommended specific measures to support adjacent structures and that more detailed geotechnical and structural reviews occur at the building‑permit stage with the Department of Building Inspection.

Neighborhood groups and advocates including the Central City SRO Collaborative, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation and other residents opposed the conversion because they said group housing does not provide family‑sized units and risks replicating overcrowding patterns in the Tenderloin. "Group housing is housing units with many kitchens, not full kitchens in each unit," a Tenderloin representative said, warning the model could fail to meet family needs.

Supporters of the project — among them the Housing Action Coalition and several faith leaders — argued the site offers an opportunity to add housing and services on underused church land. "Please move this project forward," said Corey Smith of the Housing Action Coalition, while a church member described the project as a way to provide housing for working households.

Commissioners split over whether the changes were a late shift in the nature of a long‑approved project or a permissible refinement. Commissioner Tanner, who made the motion to approve with conditions, said staff and the applicant had made measurable improvements but that some refinements — such as specifying balconies and exploring conversion of ground‑floor retail to housing — should be required as conditions. Commissioner Imperial and Commissioner Moore voted against the motion, citing insufficient community engagement and concerns that the project does not serve the neighborhood's need for larger family units.

The commission's approval does not change the project's entitlement history; it amends prior approvals with additional conditions and requires the sponsor to work with staff on the technical refinements enumerated by the commission. The staff addendum and the commission's recorded motion note that any further detailed geotechnical and vibration mitigation measures will be reviewed by DBI at the building‑permit stage.

Outcome and next steps: the motion to approve the modification passed 4–2 (Aye: Tanner, Diamond, Fung, Koppel; No: Imperial, Moore). Planning staff will process the conditions, work with the sponsor to maximize balconies and larger rooms where code allows, assess bike‑parking increases, test ground‑floor feasibility for group housing, and file an informational memo to the commission documenting the changes.