450 OFARRELL ST

2013.1535

51comments

0in person

51emails

5hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 5 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Campaign emails (17)

support for the 450 o'farrell essential housing project — 17 emails (17 / 0)

Charles Custer · email · 2021-01-07 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project
Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderlo… Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderloin neighborhood. The improved project offers the following: 302 essential housing apartments, which provide well-designed housing for small families, in place of 176 luxury apartments Increasing the number of below market rate (BMR) apartments from 28 to 45 and lowering their qualifying income from 55% AMI to 40% AMI Adding roughly 7,000 square feet of community serving retail space Providing a new Church facility and Reading Room for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist to better serve the community Directly addressing the middle-income housing demand in the City We urgently need more developments like this that allow San Francisco<U+2019>s essential workers to live in San Francisco <U+2013> an income sector that has to date been largely ignored by the market, and also to provide BMR housing for our most economically vulnerable populations. Thank you in advance for your approval of this project and your commitment to providing much needed housing in San Francisco<U+2019>s neighborhoods. Sincerely, Charles Custer [email removed] 4153595349 1728 Ocean Ave. #149 San Francisco, CA 94112 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url? o=www.oneclickpolitics.com.&g=OWMzZWQ4MWVjZThkZjlmOA==&h=YjFlM2QzNjBkMTcxYTcxZGIyNzE4OGM5MDJhOWU4ZTNiZTBjMDJjZTZmZWFmYzcwYmY2MDQ0OGI5MTkxYjU2Mw==&p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOjA1M2JkZTY1OGE5NzFhYTk2ZDY4ODA2NDQwZTVmOWNiOnYx OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email removed]show more

Pam A Spitler · email · 2021-01-07 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project
Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderlo… Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderloin neighborhood. The improved project offers the following: 302 essential housing apartments, which provide well-designed housing for small families, in place of 176 luxury apartments Increasing the number of below market rate (BMR) apartments from 28 to 45 and lowering their qualifying income from 55% AMI to 40% AMI Adding roughly 7,000 square feet of community serving retail space Providing a new Church facility and Reading Room for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist to better serve the community Directly addressing the middle-income housing demand in the City We urgently need more developments like this that allow San Francisco<U+2019>s essential workers to live in San Francisco <U+2013> an income sector that has to date been largely ignored by the market, and also to provide BMR housing for our most economically vulnerable populations. Thank you in advance for your approval of this project and your commitment to providing much needed housing in San Francisco<U+2019>s neighborhoods. Sincerely, Pam A Spitler [email removed] 4158810540 445 Wawona St San Francisco, CA 94116 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url? o=www.oneclickpolitics.com.&g=OTM5NDkxYTBiOTEzNmQ5Yw==&h=MDg5MjRlOTgzNDZmNDk5OTgwOGNkYmZlNDkzOWYzNTgwNjAzMzJlMzQyZDY2ZDIzMTZjZDU3ZWQ5OTk0MzhlYQ==&p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmQyZGVmOTM0ODE0OWUyNDcxMzkxODgwM2JlNWMwNjM5OnYx OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email removed]show more

Rachel Anna Mcclintick · email · 2021-01-07 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project
Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderlo… Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderloin neighborhood. The improved project offers the following: 302 essential housing apartments, which provide well-designed housing for small families, in place of 176 luxury apartments Increasing the number of below market rate (BMR) apartments from 28 to 45 and lowering their qualifying income from 55% AMI to 40% AMI Adding roughly 7,000 square feet of community serving retail space Providing a new Church facility and Reading Room for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist to better serve the community Directly addressing the middle-income housing demand in the City We urgently need more developments like this that allow San Francisco<U+2019>s essential workers to live in San Francisco <U+2013> an income sector that has to date been largely ignored by the market, and also to provide BMR housing for our most economically vulnerable populations. Thank you in advance for your approval of this project and your commitment to providing much needed housing in San Francisco<U+2019>s neighborhoods. Sincerely, Rachel Anna McClintick [email removed] 808 3653385 2568 Nordell Ave Castro Valley, CA 94546 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url? o=www.oneclickpolitics.com.&g=MGNkYTI5YzI1YmQyNWFjOQ==&h=MzYyN2Y2YzRkYzdiMzg3MzY2MDIwNzE1NmExMmYwN2IwN2VhMWJjYjZlYTRjMTE1MzhkODUxM2RmZDM3YmI0Yw==&p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmY1YjZjMTMxMzc0MTVhN2YyY2EzYmRmZjBiN2E3MDFjOnYx OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email removed]show more

Pastor Elizabeth Ekdale · email · 2021-01-07 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project
Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderlo… Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderloin neighborhood. The improved project offers the following: 302 essential housing apartments, which provide well-designed housing for small families, in place of 176 luxury apartments Increasing the number of below market rate (BMR) apartments from 28 to 45 and lowering their qualifying income from 55% AMI to 40% AMI Adding roughly 7,000 square feet of community serving retail space Providing a new Church facility and Reading Room for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist to better serve the community Directly addressing the middle-income housing demand in the City We urgently need more developments like this that allow San Francisco<U+2019>s essential workers to live in San Francisco <U+2013> an income sector that has to date been largely ignored by the market, and also to provide BMR housing for our most economically vulnerable populations. Thank you in advance for your approval of this project and your commitment to providing much needed housing in San Francisco<U+2019>s neighborhoods. Sincerely, Pastor Elizabeth Ekdale [email removed] 4159287770 St. Mark's Lutheran Church 1031 Franklin St. SF, CA 94109 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url? o=www.oneclickpolitics.com.&g=Nzg2NDVkMmI0NGY0NDk5ZQ==&h=YmQ1NzU5YmNmZDk2Y2Q1OWVmYWE5MTVjZmUyM2IyNDJiOTc2ZGQ0NDFkMTdmNTZiYTE1ZWQ3MWE0OGU2MzZjZQ==&p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOjQ4ZWM5YWIzMTYxMTNjYjM0NGI3MzQ2ZTg5OTI2NGE3OnYx OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email removed]show more

Martha A Arbouex · email · 2021-01-07 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project
Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderlo… Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderloin neighborhood. The improved project offers the following: 302 essential housing apartments, which provide well-designed housing for small families, in place of 176 luxury apartments Increasing the number of below market rate (BMR) apartments from 28 to 45 and lowering their qualifying income from 55% AMI to 40% AMI Adding roughly 7,000 square feet of community serving retail space Providing a new Church facility and Reading Room for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist to better serve the community Directly addressing the middle-income housing demand in the City We urgently need more developments like this that allow San Francisco<U+2019>s essential workers to live in San Francisco <U+2013> an income sector that has to date been largely ignored by the market, and also to provide BMR housing for our most economically vulnerable populations. Thank you in advance for your approval of this project and your commitment to providing much needed housing in San Francisco<U+2019>s neighborhoods. Sincerely, Martha A Arbouex [email removed] 4157564014 821 Laguna Street, 4 San Francisco, CA 94102 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url? o=www.oneclickpolitics.com.&g=ZWFkMDdkNjRmODQxODFlMg==&h=Y2UzMWUxNGVlMmQ3NTcyMWZlOGI5YzA1M2RkMjUyOWI1MWE0NzY2YzBiNGYwMzAyYmVjMTExZGY0NjYxMmI0Mg==&p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmY1MzcyZWQzYzNkZTM2MmExMmMxYTcwYmM3YWJkOGE4OnYx OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email removed]show more

Ali Baalouach · email · 2021-01-07 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project
Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderlo… Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderloin neighborhood. The improved project offers the following: 302 essential housing apartments, which provide well-designed housing for small families, in place of 176 luxury apartments Increasing the number of below market rate (BMR) apartments from 28 to 45 and lowering their qualifying income from 55% AMI to 40% AMI Adding roughly 7,000 square feet of community serving retail space Providing a new Church facility and Reading Room for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist to better serve the community Directly addressing the middle-income housing demand in the City We urgently need more developments like this that allow San Francisco<U+2019>s essential workers to live in San Francisco <U+2013> an income sector that has to date been largely ignored by the market, and also to provide BMR housing for our most economically vulnerable populations. Thank you in advance for your approval of this project and your commitment to providing much needed housing in San Francisco<U+2019>s neighborhoods. Sincerely, Ali baalouach [email removed] 9164103388 604 Geary street San Francisco, CA 94102 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url? o=www.oneclickpolitics.com.&g=ZjEyNDZiMjlkYWQxNTQxMw==&h=MDRhNjdkOGYzZDM4YjJlNGE1NmM0ODNkYTQzYjI3OTNlODljZTZkNDA0ZDAzMmY2NmZjZmVhMGQ5NWJlZTIwMQ==&p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmJkYTBiZDM1ZjljYjAxZjNhZjk3ODQxNTRjZTA5MTRiOnYx OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email removed]show more

… and 11 more

Comments by hearing (34)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2018-06-28 · 14 comments · 8 / 6

Adam Sparks · email · 2018-06-28 · support · source packet

Case # 2013.1535ENV | 450-474 O'Farrell Street/532 Jones Street
> > Dear Planning Commissioners: > > I am the owner of the property adjacent to the subject project called the Pacific Bay Inn. We are located on the Northeast corner of Jones and O<U+2019>Farrell Streets at 520 Jones Street. > Although, we are generally supportive as the project as a whole, we were only informed yesterday of a serious problem that will create a fire code hazard. It was nev… > > Dear Planning Commissioners: > > I am the owner of the property adjacent to the subject project called the Pacific Bay Inn. We are located on the Northeast corner of Jones and O<U+2019>Farrell Streets at 520 Jones Street. > Although, we are generally supportive as the project as a whole, we were only informed yesterday of a serious problem that will create a fire code hazard. It was never communicated directly to us by the project developer. > > This hazard will force us to close up existing windows in our building and convert them to blank walls. This is due to the proximity of the project<U+2019>s building to us, both on the Western side of the project as well as to portion that wraps around our building on the Northern side (and will be built over the Shalimar Hotel on Jones street). Because the project's building will be built on their property line and be literally only 1 foot way from our windows (or closer at other points), we will be forced by the Fire Department to close our windows, as it unlawful per Fire and Building Code to have a window so close to an adjacent building. > > We are asking that the project developer develop his project with the minimum setback that will allow all our windows to remain lawful. This is a very modest request. > > Moreover, our building is a Category 3 National Landmark, and we are prohibited from making any changes to our facade-this includes walling off windows. The proximity of the development would put our National Historic landmark in conflict with the Fire Codes. We want to preserve the Historic Nature of our building as well work with the developer in this reasonable accommodation. I believe the developer will only need to adjust his building line by about 5 feet and only in those areas near our windows. I note that the developer has done this in two areas where we have windows, But he has not done it for ALL our windows that are adjacent to his project. > > In summary, we are supportive of his project as we believe it will be an overall benefit to our community, our only concern is that we don<U+2019>t want his project to create a Fire Code violation for us, that will put us into a violation forcing us to wall off existing windows. > Moreover, our building has a long term lease with the City of San Francisco to house homeless. This population is very vulnerable and the reducing of light and air in our building will create further distress among this population as well. > > > This morning, we expressed our concern to the developer and he thought that they were reasonable and he would look in good faith to accommodate us. > > However, we humbly ask the the Commission to make preserving our windows a condition of his approval: that the project's building line be set back in a way that none of our windows will be required to be closed and walled off. This is both a modest and reasonable request in exchange for our support of the pending project. > > Thank you. > > Sincerely, > > > Adam Sparks > President > Pacific Bay Inn, Inc. > 520 Jones St, > San Francisco, CA. 94109 > > Mailing address: > > 825 Van Ness Av, Suite 301 > San Francisco, Ca .94109show more

James Buckley · email · 2018-06-28 · support · source packet

450 O'Farrell St Project
Commissioners, I am writing to encourage you to take more time to consider the exciting project at 450 O<U+2019>Farrell. For over two decades I built affordable housing with non-profit groups in San Francisco, some of which involved the adaptive reuse of historic buildings, and I am now on the faculty of the School of Architecture and Environment at the University of Oregon in Portland, where I run the hist… Commissioners, I am writing to encourage you to take more time to consider the exciting project at 450 O<U+2019>Farrell. For over two decades I built affordable housing with non-profit groups in San Francisco, some of which involved the adaptive reuse of historic buildings, and I am now on the faculty of the School of Architecture and Environment at the University of Oregon in Portland, where I run the historic preservation program. I remain a summertime resident of San Francisco and I was one the initial members of the Historic Preservation Commission from 2009-2011. One of the challenges of my current role is to get preservationists to understand the incredible need to build more housing of all kinds and vice versa - getting housing folks to understand the value of our existing environment in making good places for people to live. As terrific as the proposed O<U+2019>Farrell project is in providing much-needed housing, my experience suggests that it would be even better if it properly re-used the existing church as some kind of public space. Several years ago I worked with the SF Redevelopment Agency to build assisted living units in Japantown that incorporated the old synagogue on Bush Street as a community room and dining area for the residents. (Photo 1) The result of the combined old and new elements at the Kokoro project is much stronger than if the whole complex was built new. I also developed another Christian Science Church, on Haight Street near Masonic, into low-income senior housing - it was a little more expensive to convert the historic building to residential units but it is an amazing place to live and a great neighbor for the community.(Photo 2) My experience suggests that saving only the facade of the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell building is not good practice - in the long run, it is better to incorporate the bulk of the building into the new use than to have an applied veneer. Another local example I was involved in is the Folsom/Dore Apartments on SOMA - it was our intention to save the entire front portion of the existing industrial building to preserve the look of the Folsom St. industrial corridor but in the end we could only save the front facade skin and it doesn<U+2019>t look right at all. (Photo 3) I believe the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell project will serve the community much more in the long run if it makes better use of the wonderful existing church, and, from my long experience in development, I know that with good design it will not break the budget to do so - in fact, if done well, it could add financial value to the project as well as provide a public service by preserving one of our amazing historic buildings. It is my understanding that through rezoning to match the adjacent areas, the project could generate transferable development rights that could raise money for renovation, and there are also tax credits available for rehabilitation of the historic building. Finally, I have seen in Portland that is a VERY bad precedent to demolish a contributing structure in a historic district - this practice has led to a significant change in the character of many neighborhoods without adding much new housing. It is indeed possible to be a YIMBY supporter of building new housing AND a believer in preserving our unique historic environment. It does take a little extra thought, and I believe that if you spend a little more time on this important project, you can find ways to both produce additional housing units for city residents and maintain the city<U+2019>s heritage for generations to come. James Buckley, Ph.D. Venerable Chair in Historic Preservation University of Oregon School of Architecture and Environment 70 NW Couch Street Portland, OR 97209 http://hp.uoregon.edushow more

Stephanie Peek · email · 2018-06-28 · support · source packet

Letter in support of Fifth Church O'Farrell St project
Dear Secretary, Please share this with the Planning Commissioners before they discuss and vote on the Fifth Church project on O<U+2019>Farrell St tomorrow Thursday June 28 after 3pm. Thank you, Stephanie Peek 35 - 17th Ave San Francisco CA 94121 To: The Planning Commission Date: June 28, 2018 Re: Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist, O<U+2019>Farrell St. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My na… show more

Carl Vanos · email · 2018-06-28 · support · source packet

RE: Support for 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street proposed project
Planning Commission San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission St., Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 RE: Support for 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street proposed project Dear President Hillis and Commissioners, As a long term resident and business owner in San Francisco I urge you to approve the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street project. Please help the revitalize this blighted neighborhood. This area of the… show more

Michael Nulty · email · 2018-06-28 · oppose · source packet

450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project
Subject: 450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project Final Environmental Impact Report Certification (Planning Department File No 2013.1535ENV) June 20, 2018 Chelsea Fordham and Planning Commission Members: Today, I am writing to request electronic copies of Responses to comments on the Draft EIR for 450- 474 O'Farrell Street/ 532 Jones Street Project State Clearinghouse No. 2… show more

Mary Tran · email · 2018-06-28 · oppose · source packet

Case # 2013.1535ENV | 450-474 O'Farrell Street/532 Jones Street
Dear Planning Commissioners: On behalf of the owners of Pacific Bay Inn, Inc., who own of 520 Jones Street, which is adjacent to the subject project, we would like to formally voice our objection to the hearing being held tomorrow at 1pm due to the fact that we were not noticed. In fact, after we learned of the hearing just yesterday from a 3rd party, we immediately voiced our objection directly to the project deve… show more

Daniel Emerson · email · 2018-06-28 · oppose · source packet

Support for 450 O'Farrell street project
Daniel T. Emerson

Mary Ann Cahill · email · 2018-06-28 · support · source packet

Letter to Planning Commission Regarding 450 O' Farrell Street Project
Dear President Hillis and Commissioners: I am a member of Ninth Church of Christ Scientist, San Francisco (175 Junipero Serra Boulevard), and a resident at Arden Wood. I am writing in support of approval for the project for 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street (Fifth Church of Christ Scientist, San Francisco). Our religion advocates that we should be good citizens and good neighbors. Fifth Church has been fulfilling th… show more

Anna Sylvester · email · 2018-06-28 · support · source packet

Church of Christ Scientist Project--Letter of Support
Church of Christ Scientist Project--Letter of Support

Steven (25) X4902 Vettel · email · 2018-06-28 · support · source packet

450 O'Farrell Street
Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of Thompson Dorfman Partners, the project sponsor along with the Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist, of the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street project this is before you today. The project includes 176 dwelling units and a replacement church following the demolition of three structures, including the existing church building, except for its O<U+2019>Farrell Street faade and … show more

Lindsay Mulcahy · email · 2018-06-28 · support · source packet

Support for 450 O'Farrell project
Dear Commissioners, I am pleased to submit a letter on behalf of Tenderloin Housing Clinic in support of the project at 450 O<U+2019>Farrell. The project sponsor<U+2019>s thoughtful outreach to the tenants at the nearby THC properties and subsequent community benefits agreement demonstrates their commitment to maintain and improve the quality of life of longstanding neighborhood residents. This mixed-us… show more

Courtney Damkroger · email · 2018-06-28 · oppose · source packet

Item 14 2013.1535ENV: 450-474 O<U+2019>FARRELL STREET/532 JONES STREET/Certification of Final
EIR<U+2014>REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE June 27, 2018 President Rich Hillis San Francisco Planning Commission City Hall, Room 400 I Carleton Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 RE: 450-474 O<U+2019>FARRELL STREET/532 JONES STREET/Certification of Final EIR<U+2014> REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Dear President Hillis and Members of the Planning Commission: I write to request that you continue this i… EIR<U+2014>REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE June 27, 2018 President Rich Hillis San Francisco Planning Commission City Hall, Room 400 I Carleton Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 RE: 450-474 O<U+2019>FARRELL STREET/532 JONES STREET/Certification of Final EIR<U+2014> REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Dear President Hillis and Members of the Planning Commission: I write to request that you continue this item. The project evaluated in this EIR proposes the demolition of an important and designated historic resource<U+2014>the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist. The EIR does not include basic information needed to make a fully informed decision on the proposed project. Granting a continuance would provide time for the Planning Commission and interested parties to access recently provided financial feasibility studies. The proposed project calls for the demolition of the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist, which is an individually significant historic building within the Uptown Tenderloin National Register Historic District. The two preservation alternatives included in the EIR are rejected and found financially infeasible based upon studies that have not been provided to the Planning Commission. Both the Planning Commission and the public should have the benefit of reviewing these reports upon which the future of this National Register-listed property rests. Nor does the EIR include an alternative that makes use of long-standing financial incentives known to the historic preservation and development communities<U+2014>the consideration of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRS) and the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit as well as the New Market Tax Credits. The C-3 district is adjacent to the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist and rezoning the project site to C-3 would allow for TDRs as was successfully undertaken with St. Boniface in 2014. The proposed project promotes <U+201C>Facadism<U+201D> in its most appalling form<U+2014>on a recognized historic landmark that will be reduced to a simple arcade. To make matters worse, the retention of this piece of the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist would come at, what I understand, is an astounding cost <U+2013> several million dollars. To make matters worse, the City<U+2019>s Historic Preservation Commission is currently working on a Facadism Policy to prevent just this type of expensive tokenism. The HPC currently has a policy in draft form, which is scheduled for adoption at their August 2018 hearing. In closing, I urge you to take the time for a thorough evaluation of the proposal and examination of all opportunities available to retain the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist while also addressing the interests of the Church and developer. Sincerely, Courtney Damkroger Vice Chair San Francisco Heritage Board of Directors cc: Mike Buhler, SF Heritageshow more

Richard Rothman · email · 2018-06-28 · oppose · source packet

450-474 O'Farrell Street (Fifth Church of Christ Scientist
Dear Planning Commissioners, I will not be able to attend this hearing on Thursday so I am emailing you in asking that the Commission postpone this decision until economics study is presented to the Commission. This project if approved would demolish a historically significant building which is in a historical preservation district. I am also against so-called facadism. Its not enough just to save the outside of … show more

Carol Ann Rogers · email · 2018-06-28 · oppose · source packet

450-474 O'Farrell proposed project
Dear President Hillis and Planning Commissioners, I am writing to oppose the project at 450-474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street (Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist) as currently designed and to request a continuance to allow time for the public and the Commission to carefully review the economic studies, and for stakeholders to work toward alternatives that would maximize housing while simultaneously preserving this imp… show more

2018-08-30 · 2 comments · 2 / 0

Jeff Brown · email · 2018-08-30 · support · source packet

Support for a new church and housing project at 450 O'Farrell Street
Dear Mr. Hillis, I write to state my support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street project to provide a new home for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist, and to provide much needed new housing. Sincerely, - Jeff Brown Bay Area Resident Employed by a company located at 333 Bush Street Cell: [phone removed]

Elizabeth Schwartz · email · 2018-08-30 · support · source packet

450 "OFarrell
I support the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street project to provide a new home for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist, and to provide much needed new housing. Elizabeth Schwartz

2018-09-06 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Steven (25) X4902 Vettel · email · 2018-09-06 · support · source packet

450 O'Farrell Street
Commissioners, you will recall that the conditional use hearing for 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street (176 dwelling units and a replacement church for the Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist) was continued from June 28 to September 13 in order for the project sponsor to investigate several potential funding sources that representatives of San Francisco Heritage suggested could close the funding gap of the EIR<U+2019… Commissioners, you will recall that the conditional use hearing for 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street (176 dwelling units and a replacement church for the Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist) was continued from June 28 to September 13 in order for the project sponsor to investigate several potential funding sources that representatives of San Francisco Heritage suggested could close the funding gap of the EIR<U+2019>s full preservation alternative or partial preservation alternative. Those suggested funding sources include historic tax credits, new market tax credits, Mills Act property tax reductions, and the sale of TDRs that would require a rezoning of the site to a C-3 zoning designation. Real Estate economists EPS has now completed their analysis of the four potential funding sources, and I am attaching their final memorandum, dated Aug. 30, 2018. EPS concludes that none of these potential funding sources would be sufficient to close the significant funding gap their original analysis determined rendered the preservation alternatives infeasible. For your convenience, I am also enclosing EPS<U+2019>s original analysis (Dec. 2017) and the peer review of that analysis performed by Willman (June 2018), both of which were reviewed and confirmed by Planning staff and provided the substantial evidence for the financial infeasibility findings contained in the Department<U+2019>s draft CEQA findings prepared for the June hearing. We have shared these analyses with Heritage and have met with them twice since the June hearing. The church and the project developer, Thompson Dorfman Partners, believe EPS<U+2019>s and Willman<U+2019>s analyses are persuasive and request that the Commission approve the project as proposed at the continued hearing on September 13. The undisputed evidence establishes that the full preservation and partial preservation alternatives are indeed infeasible, even with use of one or more of Heritage<U+2019>s suggested funding sources. Please let me know if we can provide any other information prior to the hearing. Steven L. Vettel Partner [email removed] D [phone removed] C [phone removed] 235 Montgomery Street 17th FL San Francisco, CA 94104 www.fbm.com _________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. Farella Braun + Martel LLP This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.comshow more

2021-01-07 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Ruby Williams · email · 2021-01-07 · oppose · source packet

TIME SENSITIVE RE TODAY'S 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - 2013.1535CUA-02: 450-474
O'Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Importance: High Sent on behalf of Michael Shonafelt Ruby Williams Legal Administrative Assistant [phone removed] | [email removed] Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street, 5th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 newmeyerdillion.com

One Click Politics · email · 2021-01-07 · support · source packet

Today's communications from outside your district
Re: Today's communications from outside your district Dear Planning Commissioners, This is a message from OneClickPolitics.com You've received a communication from a voter outside of your district. Rather than forward each of them to you, we've compiled them into a summary: 1 users sent the message: 'Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project'... Sincerely, One C… show more

2021-01-28 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Ben Libbey · email · 2021-01-28 · support · source packet

450 O'Farrell 2013.1535CUA-02
1/25/2021 San Francisco Planning Commission 1 Dr Carlton Goodlett Pl San Francisco, CA 94102 [email removed]; Via Email Re: 450 O'Farrell 2013.1535CUA-02 Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, … 1/25/2021 San Francisco Planning Commission 1 Dr Carlton Goodlett Pl San Francisco, CA 94102 [email removed]; Via Email Re: 450 O'Farrell 2013.1535CUA-02 Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). California Government Code 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality<U+2019>s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. . . . (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The applicant proposes to demolish three existing buildings and construct a mixed use building up to 13-stories on O'Farrell and Shannon Streets and up to 4-stories on Jones Street. The project is now proposed to include 302 group housing rooms with a total of 316 beds. The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Yimby Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Lawshow more

2021-03-04 · 3 comments · 0 / 3

Tenderloin Tenants · email · 2021-03-04 · oppose · source packet

450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project seeking a redesign
Subject: 450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project Public Comment February 28, 2021 Planning Commission Members/Commission Staff: On behalf of Tenderloin Tenants, we are writing in opposition to the proposed project at 450 O'Farrell St. Tenderloin Tenants and several of our coalition partners have expressed severe issues with the proposed project at 450 O'Farrell St… show more

Central City Democrats · email · 2021-03-04 · oppose · source packet

2013.1535CUV-02 (450 O'Farrell ST Group Housing)
Subject: 450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project March 2, 2021 Planning Commission Commissioners & Planning Staff: Central City Democrats share this letter to San Francisco decision-makers about our problematic issues about Forge Development Partners' design details for their project at 450<U+2013>474 O'Farrell Street/532 Jones Street. Central City Democrats, … show more

Michael Nulty · email · 2021-03-04 · oppose · source packet

2013.1535CUV-02, 450 O'Farrell Street Group Housing
Subject: 450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project Public Response March 1, 2021 Planning Commission Members/Commission Staff: On behalf of Alliance for a Better District 6 (ABD6), we write to express grave concerns about the proposed project at 450 O'Farrell St. Since 1999, ABD6 has served as a planning and land use entity within the central city neighborhoods. Our membership i… Subject: 450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project Public Response March 1, 2021 Planning Commission Members/Commission Staff: On behalf of Alliance for a Better District 6 (ABD6), we write to express grave concerns about the proposed project at 450 O'Farrell St. Since 1999, ABD6 has served as a planning and land use entity within the central city neighborhoods. Our membership includes a cross-section of working-class, very low-income residents, seniors, disabled, and families. We try to balance their current and future needs. We work with stakeholders, decision- makers, and elected officials to raise public awareness on issues that impact their quality of life. This development proposes revising housing from 176 residential dwelling units to 302 group housing units. Concerns are: -Project Sponsor, Forge Development Partners, started notifying community members on December 9, 2020, about a scheduled Planning Commission hearing on January 7, 2021. Being around the holidays and little community outreach to various community stakeholders, the project sponsor failed its due diligence. -This project does not address the potential racial and social inequities that it may create. The project sponsor has failed to study which of these potential inequities and detailed mitigation processes. -This project design, as proposed, is problematic in terms of the number and size of units combined with the expectation of occupants per unit. Overcrowding will occur, and minimum standards for quality family housing miss the needs of middle-class tenants. -Project sponsor is designing the project for middle-income working-class residents (such as nurses, teachers, firefighters, government and construction workers), removing all previously approved 49 parking spaces for residents, providing six dedicated church use parking. Middle-income with an average annual transportation cost of $13,375 with lack of parking options impacts future residents, exasperating nearby parking for existing residents and merchants. -This project forces its residents and their visitors to use bicycles, cars, for-hire vehicles, or public transportation. Our concern is the increased usage of nearby public transportation bus stops that will become overcrowded impacting current residents, including the seniors and disabled population. -This project fails to meet current standards for inclusionary housing-only 13%of the units will be permanently affordable. -The residential units are not proposed to include cooking facilities. The project sponsor submits to include the following: -Counter-top & Sink -Under counter fridge -Microwave -Dishwasher -Storage The purpose of these features is to allow tenants to receive food delivery or take out food, store, and reheat leftovers. Unacceptable for Middle-income families. -Over 50% of ground floor usage is dedicated to exclusive church-use of up to 250 members. In contrast, anywhere between 604 to 1,208 residents will occupy the housing. That is not equitable. -Bicycle parking is located in the basement, which is unacceptable for proper accessibility. -Project reduces open space from 8,256 Square Feet to 4,900 Square Feet. Not acceptable for a maximum of 604 children. -San Francisco's current rental vacancy rate for the approximately 3,000 property owners of the San Francisco Apartment Association is 27 percent. Gentrification concerns: -Gentrifiers are young. And as they displace families, gentrifiers aren't as likely to get involved with school-related issues. -They take advantage of options. Because of their higher incomes, even those gentrifiers with children are more likely to take advantage of school choice, private schools, and charter schools. Which sometimes draws away higher-performing students from schools in the neighborhood, leaving lower- income and struggling students in public schools. An Increase in Police -White people will call the cops on your ass in a minute. As our community turns whiter, we notice a larger police presence. That's because white people's interactions with cops tend to mean they are safer, while black people's interactions generally mean they will be less safe. -They call it <U+201C>order maintenance.<U+201D> It<U+2019>s when police patrol white neighborhoods heavily to keep the peace. They stop <U+201C>black<U+201D> suspicious people on their <U+201C>gut feeling<U+201D> when the perceived perpetrator looks like he or she doesn<U+2019>t belong. They respond to calls quicker. In San Francisco, police patrol more in the city<U+2019>s gentrified areas, which have also seen a rise in cases of police brutality. They have also seen a rise in people calling 311 (the non-emergency police number) to report people in their neighborhoods for noise violations and minor infractions. Conclusion The project sponsor is catering to the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist's needs at the expense of the future middle-class residents by failing to provide adequate amenities for their families. Impacts on the surrounding community have not been mitigated. A redesign is required to get proper community support. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out at [email removed]. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Bryan Executive Committee Members Alliance for a Better District 6 P.O. Box 420782 San Francisco, CA 94142-0782 [phone removed] http://abd6.cfsites.org/show more

2021-04-15 · 4 comments · 0 / 4

Michael Nulty · email · 2021-04-15 · oppose · source packet

Subject: 450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project Public Comment 538 signature
Online Petition (attachments) Subject: 450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project Public Comment 538 signature Online Petition April 14, 2021 Planning Commission Members/Commission Staff: On behalf of Alliance for a Better District 6 (ABD6) and our community partners, we write to express grave concerns about the proposed project at 450 O'Farrell St. Since 1999, ABD6 h… show more

North Market · email · 2021-04-15 · oppose · source packet

450-474 O'FARRELL STREET AND 532 JONES STREET
Public Comment: Dear Commissioners, The executive committee has been dealing with these properties for over 20 years, We fill that current proposal and all the revised proposals that the developer is seeking. It does not belong in the North of Market / Tenderloin neighborhood. You have already passed over a dozen projects in Tenderloin that cover over 100 units each . In the last couple of years. This neighbo… show more

North Market · email · 2021-04-15 · oppose · source packet

450-474 O'FARRELL STREET AND 532 JONES STREET
Public Comment: RE: 2013.1535CUA-02 Dear Commissioners,

Tenderloin Tenants · email · 2021-04-15 · oppose · source packet

450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project Seeking a continuance
Subject: 450<U+2013>474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street Project Public Comment April 14, 2021 Planning Commission Members/Commission Staff: On behalf of Tenderloin Tenants, we are writing in continual opposition to the proposed project at 450 O'Farrell St. Tenderloin Tenants and several of our coalition partners have expressed severe issues with the proposed project at 450 O'Far… show more

2021-06-10 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Ben Libbey · email · 2021-06-10 · support · source packet

450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street
6/10/2021 San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness, Ste 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 [email removed] Via Email Re: 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, This letter is intended to outline some of the legal issues surrounding the project at 450 O<U+2019>Farrell and to explain why the Housing Accountability Act does apply to this project, despite pl… show more

2021-06-24 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Steve M Pepple · email · 2021-06-24 · support · source packet

Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project
Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderlo… Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderloin neighborhood. The improved project offers the following: 316 essential housing apartments, which provide well-designed housing for small families, in place of 176 luxury apartments Increasing the number of below market rate (BMR) apartments from 28 to 45 and lowering their qualifying income from 55% AMI to 40% AMI Adding roughly 7,000 square feet of community serving retail space Providing a new Church facility and Reading Room for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist to better serve the community Directly addressing the middle-income housing demand in the City We urgently need more developments like this that allow San Francisco<U+2019>s essential workers to live in San Francisco <U+2013> an income sector that has to date been largely ignored by the market, and also to provide BMR housing for our most economically vulnerable populations. Thank you in advance for your approval of this project and your commitment to providing much needed housing in San Francisco<U+2019>s neighborhoods. Sincerely, Steve M Pepple [email removed] 2604381358 1541 Sacramento Street, Apt 4 San Francisco, CA 94109 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at https://url.avanan.click/v2/___www.oneclickpolitics.com___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo3MTJlYWE0ZGIzOGUwMGVkZWIwNWFkYmJmODUw YjhhMTo0OmJjNzE6NTA2MTY4OTc2YzNmMzBkNGMwNzJkM2U4ZmU4M2M4NGI4ZmIxZjIxNWViY2NiNGRkN2UwMDcyMjYxNDQwYjh kZA. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email removed]show more

Chelsea Maclean · email · 2021-06-24 · oppose · source packet

California Housing Law Protections Relating to the 450-474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones
Street Project Application All: Please see attached letter regarding California housing law protections relating to the 450-474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street/532 Jones Street project application. Sincerely, Chelsea Maclean Chelsea Maclean | Holland & Knight Partner Holland & Knight LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 | San Francisco, California 94111 Phone [phone removed] | Mobile [phone removed] … show more

2021-07-08 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Edyth A. Roberts · email · 2021-07-08 · support · source packet

Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project
Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderlo… Re: Support for the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist and Forge Development Partners <U+2019>450 O<U+2019>Farrell Essential Housing project in San Francisco. The project team has worked hard to redesign this already approved and permitted project to better meet the needs of the Tenderloin neighborhood. The improved project offers the following: 316 essential housing apartments, which provide well-designed housing for small families, in place of 176 luxury apartments Increasing the number of below market rate (BMR) apartments from 28 to 45 and lowering their qualifying income from 55% AMI to 40% AMI Adding roughly 7,000 square feet of community serving retail space Providing a new Church facility and Reading Room for Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist to better serve the community Directly addressing the middle-income housing demand in the City We urgently need more developments like this that allow San Francisco<U+2019>s essential workers to live in San Francisco <U+2013> an income sector that has to date been largely ignored by the market, and also to provide BMR housing for our most economically vulnerable populations. Thank you in advance for your approval of this project and your commitment to providing much needed housing in San Francisco<U+2019>s neighborhoods. Sincerely, Edyth A. Roberts [email removed] 4153179349 445 Wawona Street San Francisco, CA 94116 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at https://url.avanan.click/v2/___www.oneclickpolitics.com___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo1YjYyMzhiZWYxMzA5NzVhNmQzNWE0MTQ1MDNiZ jVhODo0OjI5Y2M6MjRjZmI1MWFjM2ZkMGMyZGFlYjY0MWUxMWZkY2EwYjgyZjI5NWM1ZTQzYjY5MzY4MTU3OGJmNjE2YjIzZWYwN Q. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email removed]show more

2022-02-10 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Richard Hannum · email · 2022-02-10 · oppose · source packet

Re: Group Housing Matters/ Items 9a, 9b, and 9c on Agenda for February 10, 2022
President Tanner Attached please find our letter in response to the Planniing hearing being held today on Items 9A, 9B snd 9C. Please include Richard Hannum AIA CEO Forge Development Partners 3450 Sacramento Street, #434, San Francisco Cell [phone removed] Office [phone removed] [email removed] www.forgedevelopmentpartners.com On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:58 PM David C [email removed]> wrote: Rachael Tanner, Presiden… President Tanner Attached please find our letter in response to the Planniing hearing being held today on Items 9A, 9B snd 9C. Please include Richard Hannum AIA CEO Forge Development Partners 3450 Sacramento Street, #434, San Francisco Cell [phone removed] Office [phone removed] [email removed] www.forgedevelopmentpartners.com On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:58 PM David C [email removed]> wrote: Rachael Tanner, President San Francisco Planning Commission Rich Hillis, Planning Director San Francisco Planning Department Re: Planning Commission Agenda Items 9a, 9b and 9c related to Regulations of Group Housing I am requesting that the Planning Commission delay any action on the proposed legislation regulating group housing until there can be a full and adequate review by the public of the existing housing type of group housing, the evolution of group housing and the likely future of group housing and the impact of the proposed regulations on this housing type. It must be pointed out that not only has the public review of the group housing been inadequate, but it has also actually been non-existent. There have been no public hearings by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors on the necessity of new regulations on group housing. Yet, the Planning Commission is being asked to support and propose new regulations today. The urgency of adopting new regulations with such speed is confusing particularly since the necessity for such new regulations have not been identified or articulated in any presentations before the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission. ~ The first presentation of the study on group housing issues- <U+201C>Group Housing: Learning from Collective Living<U+201D> is being presented for the first time at the hearing on February 10, 2022. This study was initiated in 2019 and consists of 311 pages and, yet the Commission is being asked to take an action on regulations within minutes after it has been presented. ~ The memo summarizing the 311-page report by the Planning Department staff for the Planning Commission report is less than 3 pages and is dated February 3, 2022 and has just been made available to the Planning Commission and the public. ~ The legislation for these group housing regulations was introduced on December 14, 2021. Less than a month later, without the benefit of any public review or discussion of the issues surrounding group housing, the Planning Commission is being asked to promote, and adopt such regulations. Curiously, without the benefit of any public participation the Department has recommended modifications to the legislation. Group Housing has been evolving and growing in popularity over many years and, perhaps, even more quickly over the last several years. There are multiple reasons for this increased popularity and evolution. Among them is the public demand for certain types of collective living and the unique features such collective living can provide. The group housing unit type has changed due to such public demand and real estate developers have been attempting to address the demand for such housing. Further evidence of the evolution of the group housing unit type is the fact that the Zoning Administrator has had to revisit and revise its interpretation of the group housing unit type during the last few years. It seems only appropriate that the Planning Commission and the public be given the opportunity to properly review and discuss what regulations will most serve the public who is seeking this type of housing. There is much more analysis that has gone into reviewing the public<U+2019>s demands in this housing type and the efforts being made by real estate developers to address those demands. More opportunity must be provided to present additional data and information regarding how the future of group housing can serve the public. We urge you to continue the hearing on these group housing regulations until there can be a full and adequate review as to what is necessary and desirable for the public. David P Cincotta Law Offices of David P. Cincotta 140 Geary Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 [phone removed] [email removed] www.dpclawoffices.com February 10, 2022 President Tanner and Members of the Planning Commission We appreciate the opportunity to again speak to the Commission in support of Group Occupancy and Workforce Housing in San Francisco. The current zoning, designated Group Occupancy, offers the most innovative and flexible housing solution available in the City. As seen in the attached article, it is the state of the art in Workforce housing. As a demonstration of best practices under the current code, we invite you to visit the only GO housing of its type in the City at our project called TL361, nearing completion at 361 Turk St. Please visit the project before a decision is made. See what you are being asked to vote against. Group Occupancy zoning, as currently written, provides a path to delivering workforce housing to small families that is privately financed and significantly more sustainable than other housing solutions available under any other zoning in SF. This is a complex typology and the modifications by Planning, none of which have been seen by the public , will eliminate this product currently being successfully delivered in the Tenderloin. The negative impact on housing delivery for the missing middle is significant but avoidable. Based on the proposed changes in policy, the housing being delivered at 361 Turk this summer could not be developed. The effect is to eliminate the product option from the City<U+2019>s very constrained pipeline for new housing. The recommendations from Planning have not been adequately made available for review and we ask for a continuance to allow further study of the impacts and offer comment and alternatives to better address the expressed concerns. Our team has been actively working with planning since 2013 to create new applications of the Group Occupancy code to address workforce housing in the City. Analysis undertaken by Forge in 2017, supported by Panasonic (largest builder of small space housing in the world) and IBM studied this housing typology. Through this ideation process we identified <U+201C>independent living<U+201D> models as the most beneficial to the largest demographic. Private spaces supporting a community focused living experience were preferred. This was counter to the assumptions of many who pressed the concept of co-living similar to the Planninig recommendations. Co-living, which has become popular in SF and promoted by Starcity, Common and others, involves having a sleeping room but sharing bath and cooking facilities with between 4 and 15 others. We rejected this college suite style, opting for privacy and independence but in association with significant shared facilities. It is an <U+201C>opt in<U+201D> program allowing flexibility and personal choice. Only by being free to not join can you join freely in community. The solution we identified delivers true independent living within a supportive community with options for all, especially those in mid income ranges who do not qualify for subsidy or agency and look to Affordable by Design solutions. A viable independent living solution called for the combination of both in unit cooking and community kitchens. The ratio we found to be most effective is lower than the legislation is proposing but the model is similar. Our study indicates that when mixed, the use will be about 1/3 what the ordinance is projecting. Group Occupancy falls under congregate housing in the CBC which carefully defines these requirements. . We suggest a correlation with the CBC on the requirement for community kitchens. For the ordinance, we suggest not more than 1/50 units. The managing operators we work with do not project greater actual use on a scheduled basis. It is important to understand that a large percentage of residents will never use the facility, a small group will use it occasionally and a few will use it often. As in many food environments, use is reserved with management. As an example, there are several <U+201C>slots<U+201D> for <U+201C>dinner<U+201D> preparation, and these are scheduled by both the managers and users. Space allocation: We agree with the space allocation proposed in the legislation. , The project at TL 361 was guided by extensive input from Planning regarding the overall need and use of common space in support of small units. There were no guidelines but the results of responsible design show similar areas of allocation. TL361 is delivering a total of 15,000 sf of shared common area inclusive of this requirement. The total is approximately equal to the proposed 0.25 per foot of GO unit (14,400sf per this legislation). To make this more clear to Planning, it could be defined as all area and service area that is not used as mechanical or common circulation or hallways. It should be clear that this does not include outdoor area required to meet outdoor space requirements shown elsewhere in the Group Occupancy code as it stands today. Energy and Sustainability Advantages: California laws that govern utilities allow for a single house meter for projects that are considered to be congregate and have the opportunity for a length of stay of under 30 days. Per PG&E, there is only one project of this type in California today, developed by Forge and located at 361 Turk, which has been approved for this service option. The same is true for the Water service. TL361 is the first multifamily project post 1970 which has successfully navigated and implemented this approach and is supported by PG&E and SDG&E. The cost and operational benefits are being realized in real time at this project. Length of Stay (LOS): As noted above, LOS is a key component that unlocks one of the largest opportunities to impact both cost of construction and sustainability. By setting the time at less than 30 days, and by designating the project as a congregate housing solution under CBC, TL361 successfully received approval for a single meter solution for both electrical (PG&E) and water service (PUC). This one item reduced the initial cost of construction by upwards of $50,000 per key. It reduces the size of PG&E services to the building by 30% or more. It reduces the ongoing cost of energy and water to residents proportionally. Current Group Occupancy zoning allows 7 days as a minimum length of stay. There currently is no outside limit of term of stay. Once someone is in place for more than 30 days, other housing rules apply and their occupancy becomes grandfathered. We recognize the desire for GO units to be available for longer occupancy and suggest an alternative that could address concerns and maintain the benefits. If it were possible to amend the legislation to provide that a tenant(resident) may, at their discretion, extend their agreement for a consecutive period. That extension, if our initial period is 15 days, would bring them under the current ordinances addressing the rights of residents under other San Francisco codes. If the legislation set the LOS at 15 days, as a whereas, all of the desired benefits unlocked at TL361 would be in effect and the residents could avail themselves of the protections under the housing code. Key elements of GO zoning make it the most viable code for WF housing There is a collection of overlayered codes that derive from SF Planning Code (and 2017 Housing for Families) California Building Code, PUC requirements, and Energy Codes. Together they provide a platform that allows the delivery of privately financed workforce housing. Change any aspect of how these interact and the opportunity to build this housing is eliminated. Group Occupancy provides: <U+2022> Length of Stay: Less than 30 days: GO provides for a 7 day minimum stay. There is no upper limit. Because this is less than 30 days, it allows interpretation of the unit as <U+201C>transient<U+201D> for the short period. This links to both Electrical and Plumbing Code interpretations. <U+2022> It recognizes the reality that residents will deploy appliances in their units and codifies what is allowed. The definition links to the CBC code requirements and has material favorable impact on the cost of delivery. GO allows limited cooking defined by ZA and CBC as not including a traditional <U+201C>Oven<U+201D>. o This dovetails with CBC as Congregate housing and with the PUC for energy load calculations, and provides basis for sustainable practices in water and power distribution and use. This element results in savings per unit estimated at $50,000 per key. o CBC defines the number and area requirements for shared kitchen facilities. Planning expanded this interpretation in the most recent clarifications by the ZA in 2020. Although not codified, it indicates a distribution of 1/50 units. <U+2022> The size of units allowed under current ZA interpretations provides a mix of larger sizes that meet the defined needs of the 2017 Housing for Families study. CBC provides: <U+2022> GO is defined in CBC as Congregate Housing. This sets standards for ADA, Cooking and food preparation requirements including space allocations per unit. o ADA: Buildings may be categorized as either 11A or 11B. This has impact on the cost and delivery of the private bathrooms in each unit. o Under CBC, units may have either a private bath or a kitchen but not both. The definition of Kitchen is the same as GO: no Oven allowed. CBC is more flexible on the size of the refrigerator which we think is important to amend in GO. Benefits of Group Occupancy Zoning: <U+2022> Deeper Affordability: BMR units in GO housing are governed by the Avalos legislation which lowers rents on a per unit basis by 25%. This effectively lowers the income requirements from 55% AMI to +/- 40% AMI. This concession by GO developers increases the affordability significantly and is unique to the current zoning. <U+2022> Units are restricted in size to 250-875 sf. This is exactly in the range projected by Planning in the 2017 publication on family housing. It is also the range of housing that meets criteria for Affordable by Design. <U+2022> Single Meter Electrical and Water service: This benefit is available to GO housing exclusively. The combined impact reduces energy use by 30% and water can be reduced by up to 50%. The combined impact on the cost per unit is a reduction of initial cost of approximately $50,000 and a reduction in on going operating costs that benefit residents directly. <U+2022> A principally permitted use that, because of ZA interpretations in 2021 is size controlled to match the recommendations in the 2017 Housing for Families. False Narrative: Proponents of eliminating Group Occupancy as an effective housing solution claim the typology does not support <U+201C>kids<U+201D>. This is simply untrue and it is sad if the drumbeat of misinformation has been allowed to influence this policy process. In 2021 the Zoning Administrator amended his interpretation of GO unit sizes to include apartments up to 875sf. This size falls into the exact middle range of 2 BR housing units as proposed by Planning in the 2017 Housing for Families with Children. Our proposed project at 450 O<U+2019>Farrell included a mix of units that are specifically designed to meet the needs of small families as defined in the 2017 study and address the economic and social needs of the actual demographic to be served per the study. This shows that the current code, a principally permitted use, adequately addresses the defined need of the City. The Planning recommendation is silent on this aspect of current code. Planning description: The language provided by planning as Background is limited and does not adequately describe the history and nature of the existing product. We ask that this be further detailed for the Commission to make these decisions. Background: It is stated that the developers created a loophole in the interpretation of the GO code. As a developer delivering housing under this code we are not aware of any loophole. Forge worked diligently with Planning and their representatives Kate Connor and Carly Grob to craft a set of design parameters that are much aligned with the onsite requirements presented in the proposed legislation on items such as the kitchenettes, amenity and community spaces, shared kitchens and open space allocations. Based on the recent interpretations of the current code by the Zoning Administrator, there is a wide variety of unit sizes and users served. Although there is no current mix requirement, this does not preclude an approach similar to the Avalos legislation that brought GO under the Inclusionary Housing policies and applying that to a mix model. The statements made in the Background are misleading and should be revisited to reflect the actual condition. We agree that there is much to be clarified in the margins regarding GO including new rules of interpretation for BMR designations with MOH to make the application clear and more seamless. That work should be undertaken before such material change is contemplated. This section talks about the use of the kitchenette to prepare meals by the residents. That is and has been the standard. Misrepresentations by proponents of this legislation claim that the kitchenettes are effectively non effective but in this section this is specifically how they are seen by planning policy. The ability to privately prepare meals in your space in a long term stay is an important aspect of the user experience in support of independent living and should not be abandoned. The descriptions of this existing situation appear to be conflicting within the text and confuse the issue. Group Housing: A Different Form of Housing. We feel the description inaccurately presents the difference between Group Housing and Dwelling Units. Dwelling units are described as a <U+201C>complete unit<U+201D> and include both a bath and full kitchen. This is consistent at the CBC level as well as all associated plumbing and electrical codes. There is no limit to the size of a DU and once they are above 1000sf, they become unaffordable to the majority of households in the City. GO is built under the Congregate Housing per CBC. Per the current interpretations of the Zoning Administrator, they may have a limited cooking capability and a private bath and closet. They are limited in size to not exceed 875sf and, in that interpretation, were created to allow for small families consistent with the 2017 Planning study. GO is intended to be smaller, affordable by design, units. CBC sets standards for GO units to include community gathering spaces and kitchens where DU projects do not. The ongoing assessment of the cooking capabilities of the kitchenette solution and the actual use of community kitchens is exaggerated in our experience. Proponents of the policy changes repeatedly misstate the impact and total cooking currently proposed in the only actually delivered GO projects. To require 1/15 full kitchens will create significant unused facilities that can be better tasked for other uses. The proposed increase in common area by the Department, effectively doubling that proposed in the legislation, creates a substantial burden on development. Dwelling Units have no common use area requirement. This burden of additional space per unit will undermine the feasibility of the projects. The area proposed by the legislation, as opposed to the Planning proposal, is consistent with the designs and studies done with Planning to create TL36. Note that CBC also stipulates the scale and use of common areas and shared kitchens. If implemented without amendment, ALL of the sustainability benefits of the current code will be lost. The alternative proposals we identify will not negatively affect the apparent goals but will maintain the significant benefits available to the City. Please allow time to better understand the myriad of impacts such a sweeping change will cause and support a continuation for this Planning response. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to continuing our work with the City to deliver privately financed Workforce housing to our community. Richard Hannum CEO Forge Development Partnersshow more

Gabriella Ruiz · email · 2022-02-10 · support · source packet

SUPPORT - Group Housing Legislation Items 9b & 9c - Thursday, February 10
Dear President Tanner and members of the commission, The signed stakeholders would like to send their support for the two pieces of group housing legislation introduced by Supervisor Peskin being heard at tomorrow's planning commission hearing. Please find our support letter attached and pasted below. We also kindly request that in addition to Group Housing, SRO's be included in the SUD to prohibit units … Dear President Tanner and members of the commission, The signed stakeholders would like to send their support for the two pieces of group housing legislation introduced by Supervisor Peskin being heard at tomorrow's planning commission hearing. Please find our support letter attached and pasted below. We also kindly request that in addition to Group Housing, SRO's be included in the SUD to prohibit units under 350 SF from being proposed in these two neighborhoods already saturated with small units. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Gabriella Ruiz, she/her Senior Planner Chinatown Community Development Center . . . . February 9, 2022 Dear President Tanner and Members of the Commission, The signed stakeholders are sending in their support for Supervisor Peskin<U+2019>s legislation to implement a Special Use District (SUD) for the Tenderloin and Chinatown and redefine group housing. We kindly ask for the planning commission's support but would like to recommend adding prohibiting market rate Single Room Occupancy (SRO<U+2019>s) hotels in the SUD as well. The attempt to prohibit market rate group housing from being proposed in these two neighborhoods through a SUD is rooted in years of resident advocacy to encourage the development of family-sized units. The Tenderloin and Chinatown communities continue to have the highest concentration of low-income families in San Francisco, many of whom reside in SRO<U+2019>s. Additionally, these two neighborhoods contain most of the city<U+2019>s old and new SRO<U+2019>s and group housing projects that do not meet the current needs of the population. The purpose of the SUD is to encourage housing diversity and bring dwelling units to a community that has historically lacked adequate space and amenities. While efforts to address the need for affordable family housing in Chinatown and the Tenderloin have been in place for some time, this work was accelerated after a large group housing proposal was introduced in the Tenderloin at 450 O<U+2019>Farrell St. Resident voices were loud and clear that the need for one of the densest neighborhoods in the city was not more group housing, but affordable family units to address the issue of overcrowding and to create housing that would foster permanence and the opportunity to thrive. Through an intensive community process with the help of the Planning Department to understand the group housing type, we learned that these types of units, which cater to temporary residents, have the highest rate of turnover. Both the Tenderloin and Chinatown are in desperate need of stabilization and adequate housing to establish residents who want to invest in our communities. Families who currently live in overcrowded conditions in units without access to full kitchens in Chinatown and the Tenderloin struggle with food security because they can<U+2019>t prepare their own meals at home. Access to the kitchen amenities needed to store fresh food and prepare meals from scratch are essential keys to food security for low-income families. Group housing units <U+2013> which are defined by their lack of complete cooking and food storage amenities - perpetuate the food insecurity that exists in neighborhoods like Chinatown and the Tenderloin where many housing units lack access to complete kitchens. Residents who don<U+2019>t have the ability to store fresh foods at home or to cook meals from scratch must subsist on more expensive prepared or restaurant meals or less healthy processed foods that don<U+2019>t need to be refrigerated, furthering the income inequality and public health concerns in these neighborhoods. In addition to the efforts during the 450 O<U+2019>Farrell community process, the Planning Department staff recognized the glaring ambiguity in the group housing definition and worked alongside stakeholders to refine the definition to clarify the difference between group housing units and dwelling units. The Planning Department also worked with the California College of the Arts to study current group housing best practices that influenced the recent legislation that proposes a revision of the current definition of group housing, which we are also supportive of. We urge you to support these planning code and zoning amendments in order to address inequities in access to adequate housing affordable to working families and to remove the ambiguity around the definition of group housing for future development. In Support, Tenderloin Housing Clinic Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation Central City SRO Collaborative Chinatown Community Development Center Chinatown SRO Family Collaborativeshow more

2023-05-04 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Brian Oneill · email · 2023-05-04 · support · source packet

450 O"Farrell Comments (2013.1535CUA-03)
Dear President Tanner and Commissioners: Please see the attached comment letter on behalf of Yes In My Back Yard Law and Sonja Trauss regarding the proposed project at 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street (2013.1535CUA-03) that is on today<U+2019>s agenda. Thank you, Brian Brian O<U+2019>Neill Patterson & O<U+2019>Neill, PC Office: [phone removed] Direct: [phone removed] 600 California Street… Dear President Tanner and Commissioners: Please see the attached comment letter on behalf of Yes In My Back Yard Law and Sonja Trauss regarding the proposed project at 450 O<U+2019>Farrell Street (2013.1535CUA-03) that is on today<U+2019>s agenda. Thank you, Brian Brian O<U+2019>Neill Patterson & O<U+2019>Neill, PC Office: [phone removed] Direct: [phone removed] 600 California Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 [email removed] www.pattersononeill.com PATTERSON & O<U+2019>NEILL, PC 600 California Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: [phone removed] www.pattersononeill.com May 4, 2023 VIA EMAIL President Rachael Tanner and Commissioners San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Ave, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: 450-474 O<U+2019>Farrell Street (2013.1535CUA-03) Dear President Tanner and Commissioners: Our office represents the nonprofit Yes In My Back Yard Law (YIMBY Law) and Sonja Trauss in her individual capacity. YIMBY Law<U+2019>s mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California by enforcing state housing laws and by advocating for increased access to housing for households of all income levels. The proposed project includes a 17-story mixed use building with 261 residential dwelling units. The project designates at least two-thirds of the square footage for residential uses, and therefore meets the definition of a <U+201C>housing development project<U+201D> that must be approved pursuant to the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). (Gov. Code 65589.5(h)(2).) Pursuant to the state Density Bonus Law (DBL), a housing development that provides a certain percentage of the project<U+2019>s units as affordable housing is entitled to a waiver of any development standards that preclude the construction of the project at the density proposed. The Project designates 27 units as affordable to very-low-income households and is therefore entitled to a 50% density bonus. In addition, the DBL states that an agency may not refuse to grant a developer<U+2019>s proposal for a waiver from a development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project unless the waiver would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. (Gov. Code 65915(e).) A waiver may not be denied based on the theory that another project with a similar number of units might conceivably be designed and accommodated without waivers. (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346-1347; see also Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) The developer here proposes waivers from development standards for rear yard, exposure, off- street loading, height, and bulk. These development standards physically preclude construction President Tanner and Commissioners May 4, 2023 Page 2 of the project and there is no evidence the waivers would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, and, therefore, these standard must be waived. The HAA also requires a local agency to approve housing development projects that comply with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, unless the agency makes written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence that the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified public health and safety impacts. (Gov. Code 65589.5(j)(1).) The Planning Department<U+2019>s staff report and proposed draft motion suggest that the Planning Commission must make Conditional Use Authorization (CUA) findings pursuant to Planning Code 303 before approving the project, in addition to 271 findings to exceed bulk and 249.5 findings to exceed height. The CUA provisions are part of the zoning code, and projects that meet CUA standards are code-compliant. The HAA, however, prohibits the City from disapproving a housing development project based on purported noncompliance with the Planning Code<U+2019>s subjective standards, such as the various <U+201C>neighborhood compatibility<U+201D> and <U+201C>harmonious appearance<U+201D> standards found within code 303, 271, and 249.5. The City must base any disapproval on the code<U+2019>s objective standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment. Even if the Planning Commission believes that the proposed project is not <U+201C>compatible<U+201D> with the neighborhood, this type of subjective judgment is not a legally valid basis to disapprove the project. The proposed project meets or exceeds all objective code standards, or qualifies for a waiver from such standards under the state DBL. There is no evidence that the project would have a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety, and, therefore, approval is required by the HAA. We urge the Planning Commission to follow state law and approve the project. Finally, we note that approval of this proposal does not relieve the City from liability for the Board of Supervisors<U+2019> unlawful disapproval of the prior proposal for 316 group housing rooms on September 7, 2021. (Planning Case. No. 2013.1535CUA-02; Yes In My Back Yard et al. v. City and County of San Francisco et al. (S.F. Sup. Ct., Case. No. CPF21517651).) The HAA defines disapproval as any instance in which a local agency votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved. (Gov. Code 65589.5(h)(6).) Approval of this smaller, less dense application does not undo the unlawful disapproval of the group housing project for invalid, subjective neighborhood compatibility reasons. Very truly yours, PATTERSON & O<U+2019>NEILL, PC ____________________________________ Ryan J. Pattersonshow more