1979 Mission Rendering: Mission Street Building

Fighting against a rising tide of neighborhood opposition, the developer of the proposed 331-unit building to rise up to ten stories on the northeast corner of Mission and 16th Streets, at the entrance to the 16th Street BART Station, is doubling the number of below market rate (BMR) units the project could yield.

As originally proposed, 41 of the 331 units in the 1979 Mission Street development would be designated as below market rate rentals, meeting the city’s 12 percent affordability requirement for new buildings which include BMR units onsite (versus 20 percent of the total when the units are built offsite).

This evening, Maximus Real Estate Partners will present a proposal to sell the 41 onsite BMR units to middle-class buyers making up to $145,000 a year and use the proceeds to finance the development of an additional 49 below market rate rentals, for those making up to 55 percent of the area median income, at an undetermined location elsewhere in the Mission.

Maximus will also reiterate its offer to build new classrooms topped by an elevated 14,000-square-foot playground for the adjacent Marshall Elementary school, replacing the school’s existing playground which would be shadowed by the development.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Neighbor Paul

    Is there really a “rising tide of neighborhood opposition”?

    • Posted by Hola

      No.

    • Posted by James

      That tide has risen, but whether it’s still rising is hard to say.

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      There are certain folks (Calle 24, and, notably, Sup. Campos) making noises, but I don’t perceive any broadbased “rising tide”

  2. Posted by gribble

    One of the major groups opposed to this has been quoted as saying nothing short of 100% BMR is acceptable to them. I believe that should essentially disqualify them from having any real input.

  3. Posted by Dr. O

    Does it really need to look like BMR housing as well? The glass sides of the development look okay, but if those are blue tiles, it will remind me of an old strip mall or motel of tiles and stucco. FU-BU-GLY. I suppose it is a little better than having more corrugated shed material or unfinished concrete.

  4. Posted by JayJay78

    NOT GOOD ENOUGH. BMR’s need to be built ONSITE. What is up with developers coming in gentrifying the neighborhood and not wanting locals with smaller incomes the opportunity to live here too.

    • Posted by ejay

      What difference does it make if they are onsite in this building or another site in the Mission?

    • Posted by Snowbored

      On-site BMRs are not strictly about denying lower income people the ability to live there too. Often in nicer buildings, the HOA fees, which are not subsidized at all, are so expensive it becomes impossible to find someone who can qualify for a BMR who can also pay the HOA fees. You can either cordon off a portion of the building from most amenities, aka the poor door, with all of its problems, or you build another building offsite, where as a side benefit the money goes farther.

    • Posted by ElitistPig

      1 – The units proposed are on site.
      2 – Unless those smaller locals make almost $145,000 a year they aren’t getting in anyway.
      3 – What is up is capitalism.

      • Posted by blabla

        As per above, only 12% middle-income onsite, the rest, low-income is offsite, somewhere.

    • Posted by marco

      They wouldn’t be able to afford the condo fees onsite. This is new housing and won’t destroy existing housing so locals who live there can stay where they are in their rent-control apartments and save a bundle.

  5. Posted by JayJay78

    Locals there don’t make 145K a year. They need to drop the BMR to low income.

  6. Posted by Karl

    BMR built onsite = Market rate units not as profitable = developer can’t make project pencil = project cancelled = no new housing BMR or MR

    BMR to low income = developer can’t make project pencil = project cancelled = no new housing BMR or MR

  7. Posted by MarinaBoy

    Great compromise, this is a perfect solution. Win Win For All!

  8. Posted by Long-time San Franciscan

    What a sham. Let developers build at market rate – instead of robbing them of the value of their property. If the City wants to house people there, or subsidize their housing, let the City pay for it. And let’s see if the taxpayers of this City put their money where their mouths are.

  9. Posted by MarinaBoy

    Having BMR off site is the way to go, if they are onsite people can not afford the HOA and the units are left open and empty sometimes for years.

  10. Posted by observant neighbor

    Does the city’s BMR program give preference to longtime neighborhood residents, or even longtime city residents? Or can anyone from anywhere in the county participate in the BMR lottery?

  11. Posted by Noodle

    Here’s to more of this middle class housing in addition to BMR, City-wide.

  12. Posted by JimmyL

    BUILD IT!

  13. Posted by Amewsed

    No market rate buyer wants to live in the same building with BMR units. Who wants to listen to the endless haves and have nots, cars vs. carless, Campos vs. no Campos debate in your home? It is like eating @ French Laundry with the McDonald’s crowd. I am sure the BMR crowds wants to live the life without paying the price. So the focus should be on creating middle income housing.

  14. Posted by Snark17

    Sick of blackmail by a vocal minority who want the Mission to stay poor and dangerous. The city should move this proposal forward.

    • Posted by Southsider

      I wrote a response pointing out the ignorance in your statement but then I noticed your name.

  15. Posted by invented

    Developer will pull out and go to pro-growth Oakland. Keep the Mission poor!
    Oh, did I miss the point?

  16. Posted by Transit101

    This project is still too short on height and number of units. If it were 1000 units, there could be 200BMR units right on a major rail hub.

    One point not addressed by the developer is what the HOAs will be, which between parcel tax and insurance, can make even a $350k unit unaffordable to anyone under the BMR guidelines.

  17. Posted by moto mayhem

    why are subsidies being given to people making $145K/yr? thats ludicrous . there are many surrounding towns accessible by BART that you can buy market rate housing if you make $145K/yr. Why do they deserve subsidizing? below $60K i get, but nothing above that.

    • Posted by Zig

      This is nothing more than your value judgement of who gets a subsidy

      145k is the limit. This is what about a 650k house maybe?

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        yes, it is a value judgement. Do you think people making $145K/yr should get housing subsidies to live in the city when they could live 20 minutes away and afford market rate?

    • Posted by BayviewSF

      145k earners are middle class in the city. We need to have some teachers, policemen, firemen, tech workers, government employees and their spouses stay in the city. 145k income can not qualify for SF’s median price, I guess that’s why the subsidy.

      Frankly I would think it is a better investment to buy a market rate house in Daly City than buying a BMR if you make 145k. BMR does not appreciate much so your only benefit is that you locked in a low payment, but you have lost the opportunity of benefit from the ownership. BMR ownership is only a lifetime lease, I do not even know whether it can be inherited.

  18. Posted by moto mayhem

    only the addition of more market rate units will curb the massive increase of housing. every BMR unit created just increases the overrall cost of market rate housing, further and further bifurcating the market.

    • Posted by 7 by 7

      THIS!

    • Posted by Zig

      The market sets the price of market rate housing. You are arguing that it reduces supply? Could be for a given zoning so it should be a bonus

      • Posted by Not Bashing

        No, he is suggesting that forcing builders to finance BMR’s raises the price for everyone else. Which it does.

  19. Posted by Sharperblue

    oh look; a staggered window pattern

  20. Posted by soccermom

    Vallejo is off site.

  21. Posted by UrbanDesigner

    The on-site BMR’s are mid-income; the off-site units low-income. This is a great way to maximize the number of units for different income levels. Great project: improves a community school; provides many market-rate units to meet demand and take some pressure off of rising housing costs; provides 31% affordable units (both for-sale and rental); enlarges the BART plaza; provides density near transit. Only crazy anarchists will oppose this…(including Campos?)

    • Posted by Not Bashing

      Agreed, it is crazy to hold up a developer offering to do this much. Actually, crazy passed by a long time ago…

    • Posted by blabla

      It’s not 31%; it’s 27%. Do the math. (41+49)/331 = .2719

      [Editor’s Note: Actually, it’s (41+49)/(331+49) = 24 percent.]

  22. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    A BMR owner who can afford market rate HOA fees is probably someone good at concealing their income.

  23. Posted by BayviewSF

    What’s going to happen in SF if the judge finds that BMR requirement is unconstitutional?

    San Jose’s BMR is challenged in the supreme court:

    “In particular, the industry argues the law is an unconstitutional “taking” of property and that San Jose has not established a connection between the building of new housing and the affordable housing problem. Cities, they argue, make that case in forcing developers to pay fees to cover the impact of new housing developments on things such as local schools and parks, but haven’t done so for affordable housing.”

    [Editor’s Note: Affordable Housing Law(s) In California Upheld As Constitutional.]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *