Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission upholds environmental finding and authorizes 65 Ocean Avenue HomeSF project

San Francisco Planning Commission · October 24, 2019
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The San Francisco Planning Commission affirmed the preliminary mitigated negative declaration for the 65 Ocean Avenue project and approved a HomeSF project authorization for the 193‑unit development, including 48 below‑market‑rate units and an on‑site childcare facility; opponents argued the environmental review understates cumulative and displacement impacts.

The San Francisco Planning Commission on Oct. 24 affirmed the planning department’s environmental finding and voted to authorize a HomeSF project at 65 Ocean Avenue, allowing project entitlements to proceed while continuing the sponsor’s in‑kind childcare agreement to Dec. 12.

The project sponsor proposes a 193‑unit multifamily building that would deliver 25 percent below‑market‑rate units (48 BMR units), a 5,942‑square‑foot on‑site childcare facility intended to serve about 25 children, and roughly 121 parking spaces. Sponsor materials presented at the hearing said the development would be privately financed, built with 100 percent union labor, create an estimated 500 construction jobs, and include neighborhood‑preference placement for up to 40 percent of certain units for District 11 residents.

Why the commission moved forward

Planning staff told commissioners the preliminary mitigated negative declaration (PMND) adequately analyzed zoning compatibility, transportation and cumulative impacts as required under CEQA, and recommended affirming the PMND so the commission could act on entitlements. Commissioners pressed staff about neighborhood affordability metrics and asked the department to study post‑construction impacts on nearby rents; the commission directed staff to make a good‑faith effort to measure rent changes using the University of Minnesota methodology and other indicators.

Opposition and concerns

Appellants and neighborhood groups led by BODER (People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights) asked the commission to require an environmental impact report (EIR). Speakers argued the PMND understates cumulative development in the Excelsior—one appellant presented community tracking that estimated nearly 1,000 pipeline units in the area versus 274 cited in the PMND—and warned that the proposed unit mix (many studios and one‑bedrooms) does not meet the family‑size needs of the neighborhood. Community advocates also pressed for more deeply affordable units and questioned whether the in‑kind childcare agreement was finalized with the city attorney.

Sponsor response

The project sponsor said it had conducted more than three years of outreach, gathered hundreds of letters of support and revised unit mix to increase two‑ and three‑bedroom units above HomeSF minimums. The sponsor highlighted replacement arrangements for two childcare providers displaced from the site, and said the development would add 48 on‑site BMR units with no public subsidy and create local job opportunities.

Votes and next steps

The commission voted 5–0 to affirm the PMND and then voted 4–1 to authorize the HomeSF project, with one commissioner dissenting on the authorization. The in‑kind childcare agreement was continued to Dec. 12 to allow finalization with the city attorney. Commissioners also instructed staff to monitor the neighborhood after occupation to assess whether nearby rents change in ways consistent with recent academic work on displacement.

The project’s approvals allow the sponsor to proceed with design and building permit processes subject to conditions and the continued in‑kind agreement; opponents retain administrative and legal avenues to challenge subsequent approvals.

Speakers quoted in this story spoke during the Oct. 24 Planning Commission hearing.