Albertson Companies and Align Real Estate have filed formal permits for a six story, 379-unit housing complex on the site currently occupied by the Safeway at 3350 Mission St., at 30th Street, according to documents filed last week with the San Francisco Planning Department.
It’s the fourth proposal to transform the city’s existing Safeways — which tend to be one story high, with larger-than-average parking lots — into multi-story housing.
The others include 850 La Playa St. in the Outer Richmond (562 units), 1335 Webster St. (1800) and 15 Marina Blvd. in the Marina District (800). Preliminary permits for the Bernal, Outer Richmond, and Fillmore projects were filed last November.
As with the others, this proposal takes advantage of the state’s density bonus law and SB 330 to streamline permitting, making it a ministerial project that will not require a hearing at the Planning Commission.
In order to qualify for streamlined permitting, 20 percent of a new development’s units have to be affordable.
In this case, that means that 76 units will be reserved for those making 50 to 80 percent of the area median income (currently between $56,750 and $90,750 for a single person household, or $72,950 and $116,700 for a family of three).
According to the proposal, a new Safeway will occupy the 55,000-square-foot ground-floor retail space once construction is finished. There will be 137 parking spaces for the grocery store, and another 154 parking spaces for residents, along with room for 286 bicycles.
So far, all the projects have faced community pushback for a variety of reasons, ranging from concerns over the worsening of traffic to the loss of grocery stores in these neighborhoods.
Mayor Daniel Lurie and District 2 Supervisor Stephen Sherrill have criticized the Marina Safeway project because it was submitted before the mayor’s upzoning plan, which passed in December and would have reduced the size of the building allowed on that site, went into effect.
Stephen Torres, the president of the Bernal Heights Democratic Club, said he’s heard concerns from club members since the news broke about the proposal.
“The initial reaction a lot of folks had was a little bit of concern and skepticism, because a lot of the focus of upzoning and the state density bonus has been portrayed as increasing access to affordable housing,” said Torres. “But only 76 out of the 375 proposed units are affordable. This is a small percentage.”
Torres said club members also worry about the length of the Safeway’s closure and the small number of two-bedroom and three-bedroom units for families.
Currently, the plans include 65 studios, 185 one-bedroom units, 89 two-bedroom units and 40 three-bedroom units.
Brandon Powell, the Bay Area organizing director at YIMBY Action, was thrilled at the news.
“We are extremely excited about this project. Bernal has not been part of the housing story in San Francisco for almost a generation now,” Powell said.
“We’re proud to be investing in the future of Bernal Heights, bringing hundreds of new homes — including 76 affordable homes — to the neighborhood, alongside a brand new Safeway. These new homes and grocery store will be a wonderful addition to an already vibrant neighborhood,” read a statement from David Balducci, the principal at Align Real Estate.
The office of District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder did not respond to a request for comment.
The estimated cost of the project, which is designed by Perry Architect, is $170 million, according to the project’s application.
There is no official timeline for the project as of yet and no scheduled date for the Bernal Safeway to close. Currently, the permitting process for a housing project takes about a year.
As a member of the BHDC, I’m not surprised to see club leadership respond with “skepticism.” This is the same club leadership that has failed to rally for affordable projects at 3300 Mission, 3333 Mission, and 1633 Mission. Specifically, club leadership chose to sit out when neighbors of 3333 fought the design of that development. Those neighbors included club members. For many residents of Bernal Heights, “not enough affordable housing” has been a rallying cry that led to seven units built from 2020 through 2025. Cue the banner behind George W. Bush on that aircraft carrier: Mission Accomplished.
Correction: that should read seven units from 2005 through 2025, not 2020. Apologies for my initial underrepresentation of the problem we face.
This one development will produce more than 10x as much affordable housing – and about 60% more housing overall – than Bernal Heights has built IN TOTAL in the past 21 years! Last year, as in most years, the number of net new affordable units was zero. The number of affordable units currently available at this site is zero. I only wish it were bigger/taller, given the size of the site and its incredible position on a major transit and commercial corridor.
Two subsidized affordable developments along the same corridor at 1633 Valencia and 3300 Mission are welcoming new residents in 2026. These were only possible because of the changes to state law that removed the ability of individual residents to block or stall projects like these. If those laws had not been changed, I suspect these homes would not have been built or would have been scaled back.
I joined the Bernal Democratic Club because of two of its laudatory main goals: (1) preserve and improve Bernal Heights as a mixed ethnic and mixed income neighborhood, and (2) retain a mix of renters and homeowners in Bernal Heights. The neighborhood’s consistent objections to any and all types of housing over the past couple of decades have led to almost no new housing getting built and therefore a failure to achieve those goals. The area is now majority homeowner, and homes now sell for $3M, $4M, and even $5M. It’s time for a change, and I hope to see many more new developments like this.
So Stephen Torres and the Bernal Democratic Club are complaining that this project will produce 76 affordable units, when all of Bernal Heights has produced 7 units of affordable housing in the past 20 years?
I’m starting to feel like Bernal “progressives” actually are just against new housing, new renters, and want to keep Bernal Heights the way it was when they moved here. Sounds kind of… Conservative.
I for one am glad Scott Weiner got all those laws passed that made it impossible for our very conservative Progressives to block this project for the next 20 years.
A much better use of space than the current suburban-style development. Personally I wish it was taller, given the high housing costs in SF & its good access to the 14 and the J.
Can someone ask Stephen Torres how many affordable units the site currently has, and whether that’s the “right” number?
Assuming Bart will persist, a station around Mission and 30th would be a great addition to the neighborhood.
A BART station was proposed for 30th & Mission! But it hasn’t been built.
Around 2 decades ago, BART director Radulovich was keen to make it happen. More housing and loosening specifications for train platforms could help.
I vaguely remember something about that. Whatever happened with that proposal?
Thirty-seven percent of Mission households don’t own or lease a car. It’s not unreasonable to expect that a sizable portion of the new residents of this project will not need a parking space. It’s on two bus lines which come every ten minutes and is a block away from a light rail stop.
Also, if we assume that the developer wants to make money (which is frequently a complaint about new projects…), they would add more parking if they thought it would yield a greater return.
More housing is better than a sharp stick in the eye but, seriously, wherever did “Perry Architect” dredge up that San Francisco typically dreadful AutoCad template for the exterior? Perhaps the developer has ordained to build at lowest cost possible – don’t put more than 2 billable hours into the the design and make it flat.
One of the artist’s renderings includes pampas grass and other greenery on the structure’s roof, with people walking around. Yes, I vote for that. Also would love to see architectural elements more consistent with the neighborhood and the city.
Yes to rooftop open space (but maybe not pampas grass that has been invasive and unhelpful for local fauna). Yes especially to architectural elements that are more in keeping with postcards of San Francisco–such as the building at 29th & Mission that was considered big when built 2 decades ago, but was instantly popular because it was not just blank boxes (kudos to the developer for spending extra on exterior highlights).
I am a member of the Bernal Heights Democratic Club, live across from the Safeway project, support new housing and getting ready to help organize fight for 100% affordable housing for teachers, public servants, middle-income households, and low income working class San Franciscans.
Ugh. Hard to like the flat, blocky design. Look at the contrast with the homes on the hills behind that ugly blocky building. It’s too high and will present like a wall all around. Why can’t new housing look attractive and blend with the surroundings? Agree too that there are not enough “affordable” units planned.
379 units at $170mio is under $500k per. Including the grocery store and parking. These days, you’re challenged to convert a garage into an ADU for that kind of money. While the rendering suggests a rock bottom cost point, this really seems a stretch, to say the least.
Am I the only one who thinks this location is in the outer Mission rather than Bernal?
The design is so awful! Too flat, blocky, uniform. New housing projects could have some charm, could blend into its surroundings, instead of sitting like a wall around everything nearby.
Agree also that there should be more affordable units planned.
Ugh. We already have a GLUT of luxury-rate housing in San Francisco. Worst-case scenario this luxury development sits empty due to exorbitant rent. “Best” case scenario is a gentrification bomb of high-wage tech workers moving to the area and displacing the existing community. Why can’t Lurie and the pro-business “moderate” Dems focus on the needs of existing residents instead of trying to replace them with high-salary tech workers, whose jobs may not even exist in 5 years due to the AI rampage that these same pro-business Dems are also promoting? Worth noting, these runaway luxury developments are all thanks to Scott Weiner and his supply-side, trickle-down housing legislation, throwing us all at the mercy of rapacious real estate developers and speculators.
Existing housing in Bernal is luxury-rate. Why are you pretending it’s not?
Bernal is full of millionaires just from the housing values alone. I think it’s awful when millionaires pretend to be poor.
Why do you think people will be displaced? How many people currently live at the Safeway?
studio and one bd apartments above a safeway don’t exactly scream “luxury development.“
375 units and ONLY 154 parking spaces for residents! THANK Scott Weiner when you are circling the block looking for street parking! Sheeze!
It’s perfect for developers who will pocket the Bonus Density Credits but he’ll for any resident with a car who can’t get on-site parking. Musical parking places – get ‘em while they’re warm.
Existing Residents vs. New renters parking wars.
Most house don’t have a garage homes that were built after the 1906 earthquake.
Parking is hell now.
378 units and 72 affordable housing, give me a break.The BHC lied to the neighborhood residents on that 3300.
Cut down the project ton3-4 stories not 6 and get 40% of that affordable housing.
And get BART 30th / Mission station built, and get some architects that are interested in keeping with the current architecture of the Bernal Heights!