Planning Seeks More Height and Homes for Mission Street SiteSeptember 6, 2017
As we first reported a few months ago, plans to develop a contemporary 5-story building with 8 condos over 6,000 square feet of commercial space and a garage for 8 cars upon the former Cole Hardware store site at 3110 Mission Street were submitted to Planning for review.
And while Planning hasn’t raised any red flags, it is pushing for more height. From Planning’s preliminary assessment of the proposed 3310 Mission Street project which was finalized yesterday:
“It is the Department’s priority to give precedence to the development of all new net housing, and to encourage the direct building of more affordable housing and the maximization of permitted density, while maintaining quality of life and adherence to Planning Code standards.
Policy 13.1 of the City’s Housing Element, for example, calls for the Department to “Support ‘smart’ regional growth that locates new housing close to jobs and transit.” The Project is located in one of the most transit-rich corridors in San Francisco, adjacent to the recently completed 14-Mission Rapid Project (the “Mission Red Lane”) and within a 15-minute walk to the 24th Street BART station. Therefore, the Department would strongly encourage the Project Sponsor to maximize the parcel’s density and to provide the required amount of affordable housing.
The current proposal to build 8 units would reach the density limit established within the parcel’s NC-3 zoning district, but is well under the density that would be allowed if the Project Sponsor employs the HOME-SF bonus. The HOME-SF bonus would lift the density restriction in the parcel and grants two additional stories, which would allow the Project to have at least 16 and potentially 20 or more units. HOME-SF requires that 30% of the units be reserved for low- and moderate-income households, which means that maximizing density under the program could yield 3 to 8 market rate units above what is currently proposed.”
We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in as the plans progress.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Let it happen! New Cole please 🙂
What’s the deal with the fire damage next door?
[Editor’s Note: An Opportunity to Capitalize on a Bernal Heights Blaze.]
New design needed
2 condos per floor over 6,000 sq ft commercial. So almost 8, 3,000SF condos after common space allocation?
Not quite. Because of the odd shaped site which steps down to 29th Street (see our previous post and two renderings above), the commercial space is effectively two stories and the eight condos would average around 1,300 square feet apiece.
That makes better sense now.
So, the developer followed the rules but planning is going to hold the developer up so that it can push the DISCRETIONARY Home-SF bonus? I think “strongly encourage” means “you don’t get a permit unless you do what we want”. Am I misunderstanding?
Any back of the envelope speculation on potential revenue difference between developer’s current project proposal and how City recommended number of units pencils out, taking account of the price limits? I wonder if developer can make more money incorporating the City recs or ends up subsidizing housing…..
HOME SF is supposed to be an option a property owner can choose to avail of. I wonder what will happen if the owner just wants to stay with the regular zoning?
The term transit rich is so meaningless. Wow, this is close to a slow bus line — which will take you down Market. Wow, this is close to the unreliable J Church — which will take you down Market. Wow this is a 15 minute walk to BART — which will take you down Market. Hmmm… what if you want to get somewhere else? I used to live near here and walked to BART to go to work because all-in it was the fastest, most reliable option. And had a car, just in case I wanted to go anywhere else in the City.
And, I think it is absurd that the planning department is forcing people to build larger buildings rather than ones that seem to make the most sense.
NIMBY much? They are recommending, not forcing. And this is right on the 14/14R which is quite fast and reliable nowadays, not that an elitist Noe NIMBY like you would chance mixing it up with working-class riders.
ahhhh, “NIMBY” the all purpose insult — used even when it makes absolutely no sense in this context.
If you believe that the planning department was just “recommending”, you are truly naive about how things work in this City.
And, I do find it interesting that you feel the need to call me an elitist snob. Does that make you feel morally superior? Or do you do that because you don’t have any substantive arguments to make?
It is [people] like you that make it impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the internet.
See my comment below. agree.
The upgrades to the 14/14R have been substantive. To call it a “slow bus line” is false. It’s elitist to say that you wouldn’t ride the bus, and stubbornly insisting that transit is never good enough to support reasonable density (whatever the reality) is, yes, NIMBY logic. Planning worked hard on HomeSF to add more affordable housing and make better use of the transit we have. Now that it’s passed, good on them for encouraging developers to use it.
I never said I wouldn’t ride the bus. I said I didn’t and for a good reason — it was unreliable and slow. It may be a couple of minutes better now, but it still goes to essentially same places as the other options. Multiple lines to the same place is not transit rich.
And on what basis do you say that I “stubbornly insist that transit is NEVER good enough”. You made that up. Just like you made up the idea that I was an elitist.
You stubbornly insist that the planning department is just “encouraging” the developers — when it is fact using its powers to delay a perfectly reasonable development project. The end result is that probably nothing will be built. Will that make you happy?
You seem quite obsessed with labeling me as a NIMBY and an elitist. Obviously that makes you feel like a very important person. But, maybe you should try to actually come up with some intelligent arguments. You have tried twice and failed.
The 24 and the 36 are not that far away either.
scott f, do you know NoeNeighbor? If not you are completely out of line. Or perhaps you are profiling him because of his screen name? You have clearly not dealt with planning much. “recommending” often is code for “you better do it, or you will not get a building permit for a very long time”.
Scott F., don’t be trumpian. Admit you are wrong and apologize to NoeNeighbor.
They are staying under the trigger for Inclusionary Affordable Housing.
Or they are following the rules set by the City and should immediately get a building permit. Something OPTIONAL should be OPTIONAL.
True and that is probably why adding more floors doesn’t pencil out for them. The City has made the rules and undoubtedly they are not perfect for every situation. But having made the rules, the City should allow people to follow them.
Hey remember when Planning pushed the 8 Washington developer to build higher and then completely abandoned the developer, and left them to rot?
That was awesome. It’s so fair how Planning gets decision making when proposals are to code.
Planning is the best!
What is the difference between “affordable” and “subsidized luxury” housing ?
Two more stories would be out of scale for the neighborhood. Block views, and create more shade. I hope the developer sticks with the original plan.
Sadly affordable housing will not come back unless it is subsidized.The more housing, the more people, the more larger the employment pool the larger the employment pool, the more companies want to move here, the more companies, the more demand for housing and higher rents. The planning department is simply doing their job to try something, but it won’t work.
Comments are closed.