Planning Commission hears hours of testimony on 5M project as staff and developers outline $73M+ benefits package

The San Francisco Planning Commission spent much of its July 23 meeting on an informational presentation about the 5M project, a proposed mixed‑use development on the four‑acre block bounded by Fifth, Mission and Howard streets. Planning staff, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and the developer, Forest City, presented a development agreement (DA) and a Design for Development (D4D) describing the project program, public benefits and mitigation commitments.

The project team described a large mixed‑use scheme that would demolish several structures, retain selected historic buildings and construct three new buildings with heights the sponsor described at up to about 450 feet. Planning staff’s program summary listed roughly 690 dwelling units and about 807,000 square feet of office uses. OEWD and the sponsor emphasized that the DA is structured to ‘‘front‑load’’ affordable housing and community investments by combining developer obligations, fees and targeted public spending.

OEWD’s presentation listed program elements the office said would yield a total public‑benefits package of roughly $73.5 million. The package detailed three primary housing commitments the city and sponsor presented as the affordable component: a block of on‑site, permanently affordable units in the project’s residential building (about 58 units cited by staff as the on‑site portion), a separate off‑site family housing parcel (described as about 71 units on a Taylor Street site) and a senior housing parcel (listed as about 83 senior units near the site). OEWD staff characterized the combined number at roughly 212 units at AMI levels of 50% or below. The presentation also cited more than an acre of publicly accessible open space on site (a 26,000‑square‑foot Mary Street park plus rooftop space) and the donation of a historic building (the ‘‘Dempster’’) to the Community Arts Stabilization Trust (CAST) for arts uses.

Transportation and workforce elements were highlighted: the DA as presented identifies roughly $12 million in transportation obligations, divided between the existing transit infrastructure development fee and a contribution the sponsor agreed to pay that approximates an anticipated transportation sustainability fee; the sponsor and OEWD also described an approximately $1.5 million workforce development allocation and additional youth and nonprofit stabilization funding. The project team said about 1,200 construction jobs and 3,100 permanent jobs would be created during construction and operation.

Public comment: more than 100 speakers

More than one hundred members of the public filled the meeting and spoke during the public‑comment period, producing a roughly even split between opponents and supporters. Opponents — neighborhood residents, tenant advocates, labor and community organizations — raised consistent concerns: the scale and height of towers along Mission, wind and shadow impacts on nearby parks and public spaces, traffic and pedestrian safety on Fifth Street, and whether the proposed affordable units (especially the fraction sited on‑ and off‑site) would actually prevent displacement. Several speakers underscored that a relatively small number of on‑site affordable units would translate into a low percentage of the total dwellings built on the project site and questioned whether off‑site BMRs would keep benefits in the 5M neighborhood.

Supporters included arts organizations (CAST, Intersection for the Arts, Community Arts Stabilization Trust), some neighborhood business groups and affordable‑housing developers who said the DA represents an unusual public‑private approach that accelerates affordable housing production, preserves historic buildings and delivers significant open space and arts space. TNDC (a nonprofit housing developer) said it would receive funding and land to deliver a separate affordable housing project as part of the package.

Commissioner questions and next steps

The hearing was informational only; commissioners asked detailed follow‑ups on housing delivery timing, legal and appraisal mechanics (the DA includes an option for the city to accept land or accept an appraised cash payment for a parcel if the city elects not to take the parcel), displacement studies and the methods used to calculate the number of affordable units. Staff and OEWD reiterated that the DA sequences funding and land transfers to bring the committed affordable projects online around the same time Forest City builds its buildings, and that the city will enforce those commitments through the DA and project permits.

Commissioners asked for more detailed shadow and wind study results, for clarity on how on‑site/off‑site affordable units are calculated and funded, and for additional review by the Historic Preservation Commission where historic resources are implicated. Staff and the sponsor said they expect to return with full entitlements and related CEQA certification at a future joint hearing with Recreation and Park and the Board of Supervisors; the DA and final entitlement hearings were scheduled for subsequent hearings in September per the staff timeline presented at the meeting.

What remains unsettled

The hearing made clear the project remains controversial. Supporters argue it brings exceptional funding and urban‑design benefits; opponents say the project’s height and scale risk harming the public realm and failing to protect the existing neighborhood from displacement. Commissioners asked staff to provide additional documentation and proposed follow‑up briefings and workshops prior to final action to allow more time to digest technical appendices and the DA’s enforceability mechanisms.