One hears often about the excessive cost of housing in San Francisco. At a Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center meeting on Wednesday, the gripe was a rare one: That home values on the lower western slope of Bernal Heights could plummet.
The cause? A proposed 100 percent affordable development at the former Big Lots at 3333 Mission St., a 16,000-square-foot site stretching from Mission Street to the other side of the block on Coleridge. The development is a project of the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center’s housing nonprofit, Bernal Heights Housing Corporation, in partnership with Mitchellville Housing.
At 5:30 p.m., during the July 24 community meeting with neighbors of 3333 Mission St., Bernal residents and Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center representatives took their seats, tensed for a conflict.
“Here we go,” said Sulaiman Hyatt, the project lead, clicking through the first slides in a presentation unveiling new designs for the development. “Strap in, seat belts on, let’s go.”
Almost immediately, several people groaned at the new design. “It’s even worse,” one resident said loudly, dismayed at the height of the Coleridge Street side of the building.
“Everyone get that?” asked Hyatt, moving to the next slide.
“Oh we got it,” said one woman from her seat. “Right in the gut.”
The new construction, estimated to begin in 2027, will include 70 units of affordable senior housing in an L-shaped structure built Tetris-style along the eastern and southern sides of the property. The proposed building wraps around existing 49-unit affordable senior housing on the site, which goes up to three stories.
The original L-shaped design unveiled in December 2023 had five stories of units on the southern end of the property abutting eight backyards on Virginia Street. That was reduced to three stories, following input from Virginia Street residents.
According to the latest design, the Coleridge Street side will take on the extra units, going from two stories to four. None of the buildings exceed 50 feet in height.
“I live across the street from this building right there,” said a Coleridge resident, walking over to the slideshow. “I have a beautiful view of Twin Peaks which will be completely obstructed. And my property values will plummet with the loss of the view because now there will be a four-story building in front of the house.”
“That’s hard. That is most definitely difficult,” said Hyatt, nodding. “That sounds really important.”
But, he said, there isn’t likely to be any real impact on neighbors’ sunlight. Hyatt, who has been tracking the sun’s movement on Coleridge, invited the group to go out with him to see his markings throughout the day. “I like to do the ‘see to believe’ type of thing,” he said.
Don Lucchesi, who grew up in Bayview and has lived on Virginia Street for the past 25 years, thanked the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center for lowering the building on his side of the project. A majority of his neighbors are Spanish- and Chinese-speakers, and two had asked him to request changes to the development on their behalf.
But, he said, “the size of this is just too big,” Lucchesi questioned the need for 70 units in such a small area. “Can the density be lower? Who’s saying it has to be 70 units?”
“Seventy is the minimum to meet density requirements,” responded Luis Cuadra, a Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center representative.
After the meeting, Lucchesi and his neighbors were still frustrated. He surmised that the partner developer, Mitchellville, might be financially benefiting from a higher density building while neighboring homeowners “suffer.”
“This is an emotional thing for us,” Lucchesi said. “A lot of people at the meeting are also seniors. We’ve all worked hard and bought these houses.”
“I would support it if it was 56 units. I think that would reduce a story from the Coleridge side. It’s still going to affect my property values but it would make things better for the seniors.”
SB35, which fastracks affordable housing developments like this, doesn’t require developers to take local comments into account. But, said Hyatt after the meeting, his team has been intentional about including neighbors’ concerns from the start, and is determined to continue doing so — within reason.
“It’s interesting how class issues can blind people,” said Hyatt, remarking on comments from the meeting. “There’s no evidence that property values will lower. And the sunlight: we have actual shadow maps. Nobody’s light will be getting infringed on.”
Hyatt, who worked for years as a housing rights organizer, said he understood the harm new developments can cause. But, he said, this particular project is not the enemy.
“This is 100 percent affordable senior housing. We’ve already taken phone calls from people asking how they can get on the list for this.” One Bernal resident, he said, was thrilled to have the chance to move her elderly mother into an affordable unit nearby.
As a neighbor who lives just a couple blocks away, I’m stoked!! So excited to be offering up our neighborhood to help solve the housing crisis. We need more projects like this to help our neighbors in need. We walk our dog past here every day and I cannot wait to see it go up <3
This article is very one sided. The neighbors are not against the building, but want a more neighborhood friendly design. For developers to say it isn’t “financially feasible” means they need to make money on the backs of neighbors. They are cutting the park space in half and no one mentions that. Less open space for all. BHNC has not been working well with the neighbors and the meeting was dismissive of the neighbors concerns(“it won’t be that bad”, “how many of you would rent to folks at 1987 prices”) How come those quotes were not included? Mission Local is in the pocket of developers and has been brainwashed like many in SF that building will solve homelessness. Lots of vacancy in SF, vouchers would help. And back in my day, folks left the urban area for quieter and less costly places to live and age peacefully. There are many different angles to this story, not just the token rhetoric of the day. We need better reporting.
Thank you for supporting new housing. I would not mind living there myself (but please make it look a more “charming” to everybody instead of “interesting” to architects). Several years ago, Forest Hill neighbors killed a senior housing project near the street car station because it would increase traffic. 15 years ago, my neighbors killed a 24 story market rate housing tower one block away on an empty lot because construction would be disruptive. Only 1 of 22 neighbors (aside from me) supported it. I asked them why. “You don’t understand how much noise and dust construction would cause.” Our liberal city.
“I would support it if it was 56 units. I think that would reduce a story from the Coleridge side. It’s still going to affect my property values but it would make things better for the seniors.”
Reducing the building from 70 units to 56 sure wouldn’t make things better for the 14 seniors who would no longer get an affordable home!
As a person who will need Senior housing as a person with low income, I am sorry, I have no empathy for those crying about loss of their views. We are in a city, and cities change and grow and build. We need more senior housing, not less, so BOO to the NIMBYs.
0 empathy for entitled folks like you.
When I was a kid, I used to play in the vacant lot across the street from my house. Eventually a family bought the lot and built a house on it. I was so sad, but my father took me aside and said, “Look, there’s an important saying: ‘if you like the view, buy it!'”
If these neighbors wanted to save their views they can pool their funds, outbid the developer, and build a nice private park with a fence for only them, or leave it as a vacant lot or whatever. Not realistic? Sure, but neither is their obvious wish that it never change through their sheer wanting it. That was explained to me when I was 10; it’s a bummer some people have to learn that later in life.
This is not about “views.” It is about light, habitability and compromise with architects. No need for snark.
These same people probably complain to our supervisor about homelessness.
I’m so happy to see this! We live a block away (on 29th) and I’m excited to see more housing going up in the neighborhood. There’s also going to be a few new units going up at 3300 Mission St (across the street from the Big Lots). We desperately need more housing in this area. On a related topic, that Big Lots has been vacant for two years, I’d love to see Cole Valley Hardware or some other local shop move in there.
No surprise that a bunch of busybodies at a community meeting scheduled during working hours expressed how shocked and appalled they were at any potential change to their rich neighborhood.
How do you know at what time they met cardinal, since you are making this useless comment “during working hours” ?
I’m curious what the positions on this are of the d9 supervisor candidates? As well as – perhaps especially – the mayoral candidates? Seems to be an example of how peskin has de-zoned his own neighborhood to protect his view while purporting to support affordable housing…
Peskin’s hypocrisy is a great example of me-me-me behavior just like so many commenting here or folks at the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center – everybody supports projects like this as long as they are not impacted.
Peskin never “de-zoned” his own neighborhood.
Then you did not read the article…so inform yourself better, before you vote.
Views are not protected. Such a callous, “I’ve got mine” attitude. Glad to largely see support for moving forward here.
Funny how these neighbors complain about their views as if they are entitled to it when we need more housing in the city to support the aging population. Entitled much? Happy to see more housing go up to serve seniors who can’t barely make ends meet with social security alone.
Fyi, cities are known to be expensive…
You can be pro low income housing and against the dimensions of this project. The neighborhood group actually supports it in principle just not the result of 40+ foot walls next to your window (on Virginia block) or just across the street (Coleridge block). So stop all the NIMBY comments, they are flat out incorrect in this instance.
Everything could be within reason – why has the livelihood of many direct neighbors to be threatened – reduce by 10ish or so units, lower Coleridge by one floor and we would have a compromise that people could get behind (note: not wealth, the livelihood is threatened by the loss of property value resulting in huge debts from existing mortgages without the ability to pay back).
Also, everybody who is voicing so much support, just imagine someone would build a 40+ foot wall right next to your window – would you still be supportive? It’s easy to point fingers and label long time SF citizen when it’s not you who is affected but others.
D9 supervisors living on Bernal were hostile to similar luxe condo envelope objections from Mission residents against condo projects foisted on us by Bernal supes to preserve Bernal. A quick demographic comparison should reveal the racist classism of that attack from the progressive heartland on the less white lower income Mission. Can we please cancel the Bernal mafia now for decades of rampant white supremacy and classism?
Time for Bernal residents to get a taste of what they’ve dished out. There is always a time and place for reconciliation. But that would entail admitting the harm Bernal has done to the Mission, apologizing and reconciling towards a future where all interests are considered, instead of raging against affordable housing in defense of Bernal’s provincial interests.
People on Bernal haven’t dished out anything – if what you say is true (and I don’t know this story in detail) then it would have been D9 supervisors at the time who dished out. Also, the project being discussed here is literally ON Mission street – similar to the story you tell it’s actually only people on the hill including BHNC who propose or are in favor of it, because it precisely does not affect them personally. Similar to your key accusation that D9 supervisors supported crappy projects in the Mission district because that didn’t affect them either.
When they build one of these “100 percent affordable housing “ monstrosities in Pacific Heights or Laurel Heights or any other “Heights” then I’ll consider it. Until then stop burdening the middle class in this city with your fanciful flights of housing fairness. If you can’t afford to live here – move to Lodi.
The consequences of putting seniors through the traumatic experience of being displaced up to a year is very real and should be taken seriously. No one seems to listen to or care about the residents at 190 Coleridge who will be significantly impacted by this project BEFORE, DURING and AFTER.
People who comment and make fun of other people’s hardships created by thoughtless developments – only reason they do that is because they are not affected. They would flip their opinion in a heartbeat if something like that would happen next to them (see Peskin!)
It could be 10,000 ft high and still not solve the housing shortage, all it can do is give rare special housing privileges to a lucky few lottery winners. Meanwhile just concrete for the construction causes 400% more climate heating gas than even air travel. Maybe if it is high enough the residents can escape a burning planet….
There are real quality of life issues faced by the seniors already living at 190 Coleridge (a senior apt. bldg). The new buildings will block enormous amounts of light to the existing building residents, many in their 90s. The truth is that without SB35 no one would dream of adding buildings here. There really isn’t enough space.
While I’m glad they have made some adjustments in response to our initial concerns, I feel like we are being gaslighted here. The truth is we are losing our park. We are losing the trees, our view of Twin Peaks, and our afternoon light will indeed be impacted with the new plan to increase the height of the buildings to 4 stories in our 2-story neighborhood.
I’ve lived here for 35 years on Coleridge across from where this 3333 Mission bldg is supposedly going to be built! It has a ‘cold’ design to it, not neighborhood friendly, out of place for our part of the City…and we were NEVER asked if we liked it or would support it. It’s as if we were told YOU WILL GET THIS LIKE IT OR NOT!!!! The BHNC says they ‘care’, but do they? Do they LIVE HERE? Sure, Affordable housing is needed…but what could’ve happened was to get maybe a better retail store in again, like Cole Hardware or Target or Walmart? Losing Big Lots was sad. There are sooooo many EMPTY buildings downtown that should be turned into Affordable housing!!! Somehow this just isn’t right that our ‘suggestions’ are not being considered, other than they did lower the height on the Virginia neighbors side, but made the Coleridge Side WORSE!!! And when we suggested changes after that, they turned their heads again. The meeting we had was only 1 hour. I’m surprised this reporter only got ONE person’s statements. Oh well…at least some of us can comment here. Stay tune…it”s not over yet…I’m 75 and STILL working…so there!
As a Coleridge Street apartment owner whose property values, access to sunlight and views, and quality of life will be negatively impacted by having a 4 story building erected directly across the street from me in a neighborhood of two-story buildings, I would like to mention that most the residents on Virginia and Coleridge Streets with objections to this construction project as currently configured are both elderly themselves and middle, not upper class. Comments in the Mission Local paper characterize us as NIMBYs who are elitist, selfish, and hypocritical progressives. However, we have repeatedly voiced our support of low-income senior housing while we have raised questions about the particulars (especially the height) of the 3333 Mission St. development plan. To use myself as an example, I live in an apartment that is less than 800 sq. feet. I had a 30 year mortgage that I slowly paid off on a single school teacher’s salary. When I, sooner rather than later, need to move to a residential retirement community myself to access care and community, I won’t qualify as low income and will have to sell my apartment. Having a tall, ugly building looming over the neighborhood directly across the street will reduce the sale value of my apartment which translates to roughly five years of rent in a retirement home. I don’t consider this an elitist concern; it is concern for my ability to live and age while housed.
I’m simply flabbergasted how someone can hit the “minus” button after such a comment – just shows total lack of respect for actual elderly who worked all their life
Thanks, diligent journalists of @missionlocal for all these great details. I really get a sense of [1] what the proposal will be and [2] the strength of some neighbors on the issue. There have been several new buildings near my place that block views worse than this proposal, some built in violation of the approved plans. They were all market rate buildings that replaced housing for low income neighbors. I look forward to the Big Lot development helping to keep our neighbors near us. We have a long way to go to help keep our communities together, but this gives me hope that we’re starting to move towards a slightly less dog-eat-dog politics.
I live down in The Mission and we have a number of these sorts of developments near my house. They’re great. Once done, they integrate well, provide some comforting sidewalk traffic in the morning and evening and, ya know, house people. I’m a particular fan of the one in the old Cellspace building with a front desk. Nothing beats eyes on the street at odd hours.
Much better than a derelict warehouse of big box store. Just get on with it!
Yimby to Nimby is a quick trip!
Why does senior housing need a penthouse? Why will senior housing rid our street of a sweet little park/playground? Amend the damn design! Why is that even an issue? Everyone can win. It is possible.
Wonderful addition to hood,
The Senior Housing this structure will put a friendly shoulder over is one of best in the City with a 5 year waiting list which I was on til I got my present digs next to the Original Levis Factory/Friends School and this building is a much better next door neighbor than the chain pizza joint and Big Lots which had a big parking lot.
When the Senior place there got to me on the list I turned down a move cause I’ve made my place into a museum and I like being on the Martunis/Zeitgeist tail of the ‘jumping’ Valencia Corridor and have embraced and Joined the Manny’s Community of Political afficinados two corners down.
I’m a walker and Coleridge is one of the best hills in town and those houses all around are home to some some of SF’s best Lefty Political minds and I’ve critter sit for many of them over the years for week-ends, weeks and even a couple of months once and when is Charles Kalish coming home, anyway ?
Go Niners !!
h.
I think the plans look pretty nice, and that replacing a parking lot / redeveloping big lots into community space will be a significant improvement to this somewhat blighted stretch of mission. Coleridge property values may well go up as a result.
I say build it! We desperately need more urban housing, not more mega houses built on two properties that look like war bunkers. Obstructing views? Seriously? This is why SF has a reputation for groups “obstructing” housing density initiatives. We can’t have it both ways…families and low income workers unable to find housing, and forced to live so far away from their jobs that quality family time suffers. We are either pro-family (pro-teachers, nurses, firefighters, service personnel) or pro-elitist “victims”.
the idea that home values in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in sf will drop because of this development is laughable.
You take 25-50% of light away from any home in any city home value drops
You take views away from any home in any city but especially in San Francisco, home value drops
You have a giant wall 5-10 feet from your window in any home in any city home value will drop
This is pretty simple to understand and has certainly nothing to do with the neighborhood – not sure how that can even be a point of debate.
A little education in house pricing will help you to make more informed comments. The house stops being less desirable, if suddenly a great wall is erected next to your window – no matter in which neighborhood this house is.
I am a Bernal Heights resident and totally embarrassed and appalled by these protests. Build the complex, just as it is currently specified. Seniors desperately need housing as do a multitude of other categories of San Francisco folk. I will be outraged if BHNC is forced to compromise an iota on this wonderful project. For shame. Unbelievable. Ok, I need to calm down and meditate for a little while . . .
Going by your reaction you are clearly not personally affected – would they plan a giant wall directly next to your window you’d be meditating about something else.
Most likely Lord 47th has a nice garden up the hill where he meditates the shame and embarrassment away.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth and making stuff up about me, neighbors. My only objection to this project is that there isn’t one like it going up right next to my Bernal Heights home. I’m sick of all the excuses, all the “sure we support more housing but but but but but . . . ” I get it, you are concerned about views and real estate values. Tell you what I’m concerned about, seeing homeless people everywhere and young people and old people struggling to find affordable places to live. I hope BHHC builds something like this on my block ASAP. In fact, I’m going to contribute some $$$ to Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center as soon as I sign off here.
After the Bernal progressive mafiosi threw The Mission to the luxe condo wolves, I’d hope that Bernal would get what’s coming to it. This project should be built to the full envelope and apply for the state density bonus and there should be many more 66-85′ affordable housing buildings dotting the hill.
Enough with the 100% affordable housing projects. These are like sinkholes for the community, and for the residents who live in them. Build mixed-income housing that integrates the classes. Create programming that assists middle-income residents in purchasing a home in San Francisco. Mix it up!
Classist
New market-rate housing is overrepresented in SF.
A monster house was built that blocks 50 percent of our view and significantly darkens out back yard (verified by photos before & after) , depreciated the value of our little Noe home of 40 years by at least $half a mil, & no one gave a crap. We were suggested to remodel our house just as big!
sorry to hear – that is what is happening to 100+ direct neighbors of this project here.
Interesting that people don’t like your comment even though you are a 40 year San Franciscan and experienced a huge loss.
A loss? I mean, are we supposed to feel bad that the owner of a seven-figure property experienced somewhat _less_ of a massive increase in wealth for doing nothing other than buying a house in SF at the right time and sitting on it?
Sorry, I’m also a homeowner and I’m still just … not that sympathetic. And if your house has a view, best you appreciate it now while still accepting that it doesn’t _belong_ to you forever, unless you buy everything in its path as well.
It’s possible for a thing to be sad, but not actionable.
So tragic. The house that’s made you a multimillionaire where you get an annual property tax subsidy from the state of tens of thousands of dollars is going is worth a little less. Maybe sell it and buy a condo in Hawaii?
no one believes you susan
They should excavate and just build down versus up when adding a huge number of units – or are the views for the new residents more important than those who were there first?
Would you live underground?
Yes. I would have a big TV on the wall…
Yes, if the place is affordable I would live underground. You better don’t complain about the view – since the topic “view “throughout the comments here, seems not to be important – at least for people who have nothing to lose.
It costs a whole lot more to dig and it’s very hard to put bedrooms underground with our building codes.