CFAH

SIA’s plans for a skinny, nine-story building with 57 “single-room occupancy” (SRO) units to rise on the parking lot parcel at 1010 Mission Street, which stretches to Jessie, between 6th and 7th, have been slightly revised and re-submitted to the City for approval.

The proposed 57 units, which are to be sold rather than rented, would range in size from 260 to 423 square feet apiece, each with a private bathroom and little galley kitchen and a parking space for a bike in a secured storage room below.  And while San Francisco’s Planning Department had issued a mitigated negative declaration for the project in August, which is a good thing if you’re the developer, San Francisco’s Planning Commission failed to approve the project in September and it was effectively disapproved when a motion to continue its hearing failed.

The revised proposal, which has once again earned a mitigated negative declaration from Planning, increases the proposed building height from 79’-1” to 83’-10”, eliminates the previously proposed bay windows from the building’s Jessie Street façade, and reduces the building’s top floor setbacks and rooftop common space.

What was to be a small retail space fronting Mission Street is now a community space as well. And while building permits for the project have been requested, they’re currently on hold. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by What A town

    is there a density bonus waiver or exemption from legalized extortion? or will they still have to gain support of the “non profits”

  2. Posted by Notcom

    What an (all too) uncommonly responsive (to its surroundings) design. Maybe the key to better architecture is poverty…there’s less potential to spend money foolishly if you aren’t spending it at all.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Pushback from those busybodies at Planning, versus as preliminarily proposed, might have something to do with it as well. And once again, the units as proposed would be condos.

      • Posted by Notcom

        Well, then threes cheers for Planning, I guess (altho even the orignal design got this nod from some commenter of whom I’m quite fond I think the proposed building itself looks great: attractive, sensibly sized (units) and making use of idle space).

        🙂

        (And aren’t we all glad the great ‘Mezzazine Squabble of 2019’ hasn’t reasserted itself ?!)

    • Posted by Big D

      God forbid we’d be spared one more stucco or fiber-cement paneled “modern interpretation”.

  3. Posted by NYSHLONSF

    Maybe I need to get with the times, but I have trouble reconciling the term “SRO” with “condo”, even though there’s no reason you can’t sell an SRO. Call them “micro-studios” and suddenly it sounds right.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Studios can be built with a full kitchen, including an oven and full-sized range, SRO units cannot.

  4. Posted by soccermom

    Obviously meeting the market demand for ownership shoeboxes south of Market. #finally

    Entitle and languish.

    • Posted by Dixon Hill

      The Book Concern Building showed there is/was a market. Unless the price of housing in San Francisco goes through the floor, that market probably still exists.

      • Posted by Dixon Hill

        At this point in my life, I wouldn’t want to live like that and I don’t have to. That said, I don’t see a problem with providing ownership options for people who are “traveling light”.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles