The project proposed at 2588 Mission St., the site of a 108-year-old building destroyed by fire in 2015, will come before the Planning Commission by the end of the year as a 10-story market-rate project, according to Planning Department Chief of Staff Dan Sider.
“The short version is that the developer continues to push forward,” Sider wrote in an email to Mission Local.
That developer is the owner, Hawk Ling Lou. Because the scheduling for Planning Commission meetings can be “fickle,” Sider couldn’t comment on the exact timeline of the standard hearing yet, though according to an advanced calendar it’s tentatively scheduled for Nov. 16. But it’s no secret that hordes of outraged community members will probably attend and object to it, over Lou’s past negligence.
The 2015 fire killed 38-year-old resident Mauricio Orellano, and displaced dozens of residential and commercial tenants, including Mission Local.
San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin later charged contractor Tommy Jue with fraud and grand theft for installing a faulty fire-alarm system 2588 22nd St. that Lou, in the midst of lawsuits, claimed contributed to the conflagration. Lou had hired Jue to install the system.
Lou did not immediately return requests for comment.
Since 2015, Lou has refused to sell the property to affordable-housing developers, and pushed ahead with plans to build market-rate housing, despite community pleas to build a fully affordable project on the site.
Over the years, Lou has envisioned increasingly taller buildings. The most recent iteration asks to use a state density bonus law to build a 10-story project, rivaling the tallest building in the neighborhood, the U.S. Bank building kitty-corner from the site, on the northwest corner of 22nd and Mission streets. That law gives Lou a 50 percent increase in density if 15 percent of the total project is affordable to those earning 50 percent of the area median income, or $50,450 for one person.
Lou’s proposed project would include 152 market-rate units and 30 affordable units. The ground floor would be a nearly 4,000-square-foot retail space. While the original 2015 tenants who were displaced could possibly have the Right to Return — it depends on whether officials deem the building New Construction — most have moved on in the eight years since the fire.
Nevertheless, major community groups, like the Mission Economic Development Agency, continue to urge Lou to sell the property over to someone who will develop it as 100-percent affordable housing, and to emphasize the right to return for former tenants. In 2021, a pre-application meeting for an earlier proposal from Lou was met with a community petition and public criticism.
While a Planning Commission hearing is planned, it is unclear what, if anything, would curb Lou and his current aspirations. As California grapples with a housing crisis and state officials crack down, locals have less power to stop a project. Other projects, like 469 Stevenson St., which the Board of Supervisors controversially rejected after local appeals, invited swift scolding and threats from the state.
But Lou’s project is a separate case. “The project isn’t ministerial,” Sider said, indicating the project could not be automatically approved, “so the hearing will be meaningful.”
Wow I can’t believe it’s been a vacant lot for eight years now. Here’s hoping they can cut through the red tape and get it built.
How many stalled projects do we need to see in this city before we allow reasonable projects to move forward, regardless of their BMR inclusion numbers?
Such a shame and disappointment that the community (albeit a vocal minority) would rather stamp out everything that doesn’t conform rather than employ a more effective and rational strategy to build BMR housing.
100% market-rate is not reasonable. What a slap in the face to all those lower income tenants who were displaced, in a tragedy where even the developer admits his faulty alarm contributed to the fire.
Hawk Ling Lou kept the building in an unsafe state. If I rented people an unsafe car or owned a roller coaster that wasn’t properly maintained, & it caused deaths, then I would be legally responsible. But Lou will profit off the death and displacement caused by his neglect. Whether or not it’s a case of intentional arson the fire was arson by neglect. In SF it’s accepted that landlords profit from exorbitant rents but refuse to maintain their buildings. And it inevitably leads to tragedies like this, and profits for the owners with no consequences.
These so-called community groups are like tyrants. by insisting on 100% affordable housing projects, they make the neighborhood worse, not better.
We need more housing of all types, 85% market rate, 15% affordable, otherwise the Mission will turn into one big housing project, and the neighborhood will languish for many decades.
I do not buy that this owner was not aware of the substandard fire alarms.
I have to laugh a bit at how the sun will be obliterated from that orange monstrosity market rate building next door.
Seems this is a perfect spot for all low income housing, what kind of offers did he refuse?
Lou kept his building in unsafe condition, endangered the lives of his tenants, and ended the life of one. He then let it sit and sit and sit. Doing nothing to mitigate the damage. I walked past weeks and months and could smell the worsening rot. Finally destruction was the only recourse.
I also remember that night, watching people climb from windows to firefighters ladders, including a young boy. I was told some windows in hallways and fire escapes were blocked. There was an older couple who lived there, always dressed to the nines who I often saw in the neighborhood. So sweet, who knows where they went.
Anyone who allows that kind of risk to tenants, who allows his building to rot after a fire, cannot be allowed to build and profit on their reckless negligence.
When building plans are put on hold costs will inevitably rise— “affordable housing” is a cruel joke in San Francisco. There is no such thing. What one may save in a “good” deal, one loses in countless other ways. I have been out of my low income apartment for almost three months waiting for the John Stewart Company to do repairs after a neighbor had a fire. I’ve no guarantee there won’t be another fire as soon as I ever move back in!
To put a broader perspective on the world real estate industry which has much in common with ours, I recommend this article about an Australian property developer. He explains why all his projects will be left on hold for the time being:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/09/14/dqzv-s14.html
Blaming labor like that seems to be an Aussie thing. Not that there are similar thought processes happening in these parts. Gina Rinehard is another such character. The reality is cheap/funny money’s gone, the cost of construction materials has exploded. Now projects don’t “pencil” any longer. San Francisco, in addition sees market rate condo prices drop – oversupply. Perhaps there’s an angle that this isn’t in Soma, generally speaking, my prediction: This project’s going to through the process with the City so it can be sold on, waiting for more favorable conditions some time in the (far) future.
I thought these comments were fact checked? “Cheap/free money” and “dropping prices” aren’t the barrier to housing proposals this commenter claims. Seattle’s permitting rate hasn’t dropped nearly as much as San Francisco (which is on track to permit…maybe 300 units in the year?) even though they face the same macro headwinds.
Permitting != building.
Fully Agree. It’s expensive to build and the general moaners in the Mission never seem to accept the reality that it costs money to develop, A lot of time, energy and money! Even more costly when people block a project.
And enough w/ the vocal minority. You can force someone to sell. This owner is probably not selling to MEDA or another ‘community’ group because their offers are probably fire sale insults. Also, there are thousands of units available in SF, there is no housing shortage. SF keeps loosing residents, so that will free up even more units.
I’d put this in the 5-8yr horizon, not earlier. Too much uncertainty in the market, and the state of SF.
Is there any context on why the project is not ministerial? This could’ve been housing long ago. Were the offers from affordable housing developers close to market – i.e. is the current owner obstinate or being lowballed? Is there funding for ‘affordable’ housing at this location or is this a stalling tactic?
Given the history of this property, the city should use eminent domain to take over the lot and build 10 stories of affordable housing.
Wait a minute. The landlord is accused of installing a faulty alarm system that led to the death of a resident? Was he sued by anybody to determine his culpability? Where was the City Attorney on all of this? Not considering this factor is a slap in the face to law abiding housing providers both non-profit and for profit. The perversion of the state interfering into local land use decisions will be evident here if the project is altered in any way or disapproved. Past malfeasance should be allowed in consideration of this new project and the profit that the developer will make. The Planning Commission has no real power anymore in the face of Scott Weiner and his YIMBY “shock troops”. state interference in local land use decisions. The community needs to wake up and work to change the California Constitution and get the state out of our back yards!
Ronen needs to devise a plan to condemn this property and get the votes to force Breed to land bank the parcel.
Arson for profit
Facts?
At the same time, this new building will exist because the previous landlord was grossly negligent. But the planning commission is not a venue for handling grievances, and the City needs to build more housing. The best thing would be to keep the two issues separate: Hawk Lou should be permitted to build the building, and separately, he should also be facing lawsuits from the city, and former tenants, for what happened to the previous one.
I remember that night vivedly. I had just stepped out into the night from Brick & Mortar after a show and turned to walk south a short ways to my car. I saw a helicoptor in the air down Mission and immediately sensed that something was wrong. I headed south on Valencia, it was the direction toward where I was living, in Moss Beach, anyway. As I neared 22nd I got a complete sense of what was going on. I ended up being able to park easily and walked to the next corner, observing the effort being made to fight the fire. It was a shade after midnight and I could tell that they were getting an upper hand. What I couldn’t tell was to what extent the building had been damaged. Once I realized the next day and onward, I was very sad, and very upset. I had my suspicions about things; still do. I also ended being a witness to the following fire, and heard very quickly about the third one. I didn’t live in San Francisco, but I was here in the city over 300 days a year, basically because I go to music events. The Mission was one of my frequent hangouts, and the Revolution Cafe was a place I went 3 or 4 times a week at least. Also Amnesia, Viracocha/Amado’s, and The Lost Church a lot, and Make-Out Room. I so learned to appreciate The Mission, and the people there. I now live further away, and get there less frequently than I could before. If I was able I would be present at every event regarding the permit process etc. Still, I stand with everyone who has concerns about what this landlord has done, and wants to do. I will be watching closely, even though I don’t have the means to do too much, but if push comes to shove, I hope I can be there when it really counts. Stay strong!