Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission approval of 65 Ocean HomeSF project; appeal denied 3-0
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the HomeSF project at 65 Ocean (193 units; 25% on-site affordability = 48 BMR units), finding no abuse of discretion in the commission's application of HomeSF and planning-code standards. Vote: 3-0.
On Jan. 15, 2020 the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal challenging the Planning Commission's approval of a HomeSF project at 65 Ocean Avenue, voting 3-0 that the commission did not abuse its discretion.
The project sponsor proposed 193 dwelling units with HomeSF on-site affordability at 25 percent (48 below-market-rate units distributed across AMI tiers), a 5,942-square-foot childcare facility and 117 residential parking spaces. The project also requested bonus increases in density and height under HomeSF.
Appellant Jesse Fernandez, joined by neighborhood organizations and tenant-rights advocates, argued the project would deliver too few family-sized affordable units and that the HomeSF AMI targets would leave most units unaffordable to the Excelsior neighborhood. He also raised concerns about displacement, traffic, pedestrian safety and the use of Opportunity Zone financing.
Project counsel and Planning Department staff said the proposal complies with HomeSF and planning-code requirements. Planning Department testimony noted HomeSF's requirements that on-site units be priced at least 20 percent below the neighborhood market rate and confirmed Planning's review of exposure, usable open space and parking; Planning staff concluded the units meet the code's livability standards and that the planning commission acted within its discretion.
Labor unions, workforce groups and childcare advocates testified in support of the project, highlighting jobs, prevailing wages and added childcare capacity; community groups and tenants' organizations urged reversal, saying the scale of market-rate housing outweighs on-site affordability.
After extended public comment and deliberation, commissioners found no error or abuse of discretion in the Planning Commission's findings and moved to deny the appeal. The motion to deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission's approval carried 3-0.
The project remains approved subject to any subsequent permits and conditions imposed by Planning and other agencies; opponents were advised the primary remedies would be legislative policy change or future program revisions rather than reversal on the present record.
