While the Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA) has not withdrawn their requested Discretionary Review (DR) and formal opposition to the redevelopment of the Mission District auto shop site at 1900 Mission Street into a modern seven-story building with twelve units of housing, a project which has been in the works since 2013, as we first reported at the time, the City’s official record for the DR has been amended.

1900 Mission Street Rendering

Once again, in an effort to addresses MEDA’s stated concerns, that “this luxurious project comprised of large, high-end units would be occupied by wealthy residents that will negatively impact the character of this working-class neighborhood and directly and indirectly contribute to displacement impacts that threaten the community’s cultural and economic diversity,” the following revisions to the project were made by the development team:

  1. The top floor was split into two units instead of having a luxury penthouse unit.
  2. The proposed office space component was removed in order to add three more residential units.
  3. A floor with two units was split into three smaller units.
  4. A below market rate unit, which wasn’t originally required, was added on-site.
  5. A Letter of Intent for the ground floor commercial space was signed with Jason Nazzal, whose family has owned retail businesses in the Mission for 30 years that hires at-risk youth in the Mission and intends to create up to fourteen new jobs for local employment (which is a net addition of thirteen jobs over the existing auto shop).

In response, a representative of MEDA filed the paperwork for the DR which is seeking to have the redevelopment of 1900 Mission, for which the building permits have been pending, blocked.

According to the Planning Department’s original case file, “the DR Requestor stated [that MEDA is] universally opposed to any new construction along Mission Street, regardless of the nature of the project.” That line has since been stricken, however. And according to MEDA, the perceived universal opposition was actually “the developer’s “impression” of MEDA” and doesn’t represent their position.

At the same time, MEDA’s formal opposition to the redevelopment of the 1900 Mission Street site remains in place, with the stated position that maintaining the existing auto shop, versus building market-rate housing on the site, is better for the neighborhood.

The 1900 Mission Street site is two parcels away from the proposed redevelopment of the former N&S Auto Body Shop at 1924 Mission Street into 11 apartments over a ground floor retail space, a project which is being opposed for looking too upscale.

24 thoughts on “Setting the Opposition Party’s Story Straight”
  1. MEDA doesn’t seem to know what’s good for anyone. I (as I’m sure many others are) am tired of these nonsense…neighborhood groups turning everything into a fire drill.

    The Mission, nor any other neighborhood, is not their personal petri dish. They are no better than any other elitist group, pushing their self-righteous agenda.

    1. MEDA’s mission is great. They just need to keep their opinions of development in the neighborhood to a minimum. Focus on promotion of beneficial projects and programs instead of combating ones that don’t fit their ideal.

      1. Spot on! They could focus on positively impacting the Mission community, instead of tearing down other people’s projects.

        1. I wish all advocates in SF would take this approach. We’d have far better policy and far better outcomes.

      2. Agreed, and the changes to the design seem net positive (we do not need office space on this corner—more housing please). Give up and win already MEDA!

  2. I like the looks of this one very very much. Much better than the usual big boxy block garbage coming out lately. The detail and open feeling is superb. I hope its built exactly as is.

    1. I am not excited by this design — but appreciate that it is at least different from every other new design.

  3. In other words, MEDA are anti-progress[ives] bent on keeping standards depressingly low. Only the lazy are threatened by increasing standards.

    1. I think it is fair, especially with the growing income disparities in the US, to fear increased standards. It has nothing to do with being lazy. It’s scary. That said, trying to improve outcomes seems like a better approach than trying to stop progress.

      1. They are improving outcomes for the very rich (property owners who enjoy insanely high rents) and the very poor (people who will never afford market-rate, I’m sorry, “luxury” housing). And we wonder why the middle class are getting squeezed out of San Francisco….

  4. If they want to preserve a downscale Latino themed amusement park, they should not have built it in an old Irish neighborhood on top of a BART line. Let’s build an adobe wall around it decorated with colorful murals and eliminate all the BART stops.

    1. BART was built after the neighborhood had already become heavily latino. And I’m not sure what the previous irish residents have to do with anything.

      1. The point is neighborhoods change – it’s called living in a vibrant (and economically viable) urban environment … and that for the last 40+ years, this area has been (and should be) slated for increased density due to the BART alignment.

        That *anyone* would oppose replacing a one-story cinderblock auto shop – on what should be one of the primary corridors of the city – speaks volumes about the idiocy (yes, “idiocy”) of the opposition.

    2. The Irish moved out due to white flight, and Bart was built after Latinos moved in. You should really do your homework on this topic before hitting the keyboard.

  5. I still laugh at “negatively impact the character of the neighborhood” SERIUOLSY!? I have NEVER been on that stretch of Mission and NOT seen a junkie, fecal matter or drug “tools” give me a break. I seriously feel like banging my head angainst the keyboard because I can’t comprehend how utterly stupid these [arguments] are.

    1. might have been a typo, maybe they meant: “negatively impact the characters of the neighborhood”

  6. The existing building is a dump. It provides housing for no one – and adds nothing architecturally or socially to the neighborhood. I have a hard time seeing how MEDA can claim to be working in the interests of the existing low income residents by preserving a dump.

Leave a Reply

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