Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Group Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission continues Fifth Church-backed 450 O'Farrell project for more community review and EIR work
Summary
The Planning Commission continued consideration of amendments to conditions for the 450 O'Farrell project — which proposes converting previously approved dwelling units to group-occupancy rooms — to June 10, 2021, after extensive public comment and commissioner questions about unit size, community outreach and public-health risks.
Commissioners on the San Francisco Planning Commission voted unanimously on April 15 to continue the Fifth Church/Forge Development Partners proposal to modify conditions at 450 O'Farrell to June 10 to allow more environmental review and design revisions.
Staff described three versions of the project: the original approved project (176 dwelling units), a version 2 principally permitted conversion to 302 group housing rooms (316 beds), and a version 3 with larger group-housing rooms and an increased maximum of up to 316 rooms or 632 beds in some configurations. Carly Grove of the planning department told the commission the department is generally supportive of the modification but noted version 3 would require a revised CEQA addendum and final code-compliance fixes before approval.
Project sponsor representatives described the proposal as workforce housing and noted a higher share of middle-income units under the revised plans. “We have 316 units with 48 affordable units below 55% AMI and the rest below 130% AMI,” Alexander Zucker of Forge Development Partners said in the presentation, citing the sponsor’s affordability breakdown.
Public commentators were sharply divided. Neighbors and land-use advocates urged the commission to require more family-sized units and greater community engagement before approving a change from conventional dwelling units to group housing. Michael Schonefeld, attorney for the Pacific Bay Inn neighbor, raised engineering and CEQA concerns about newly disclosed footing encroachments and asked for time for geotechnical studies: “The footings for the foundation of that building encroach on the project site… that was information that was not discussed, revealed or disclosed in any of the CEQA documents,” he said.
Supporters — including church members and housing advocates — said the redevelopment would create housing for essential workers and inject foot traffic and services into the Tenderloin. “This is workforce housing for people who work in San Francisco,” a church member said during public comment.
Commissioners pressed the sponsors and staff for details on unit sizes, cooking facilities and community amenities. Several commissioners expressed concern that treating the project as group housing (which limits certain cooking equipment and regulates density by beds) risks producing very small dwellings that may be unsuitable for families or public-health needs during the pandemic. Commissioner Diamond asked staff and the sponsor to ensure the maximum allowed limited cooking facilities are provided in each unit so residents can prepare meals rather than rely solely on communal kitchens.
Given the outstanding questions — and because version 3 requires a new CEQA addendum — the commission continued the item to June 10, 2021. Staff said that date will allow time to finalize the addendum and for sponsors to revise plans to respond to commissioner direction and community concerns.
