Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for 100% affordable housing at 3300 Mission Street, denies appeal
Summary
After testimony from neighbors, project sponsors, and city staff, the Board of Appeals denied an appeal of the AB 20 11 ministerial site permit for a 6‑story, 35‑unit 100% affordable building at 3300 Mission Street, finding the permit met objective state and local standards and rejecting requests for additional studies or a continuance.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 28 denied an appeal of the permit for a proposed 6‑story, 35‑studio unit, 100% affordable housing project at 3300 Mission Street, ruling the site permit met the objective standards required under state law (AB 20 11) and that the board—s narrow ministerial review did not support a reversal.
Neighbors and appellants told the board they favored affordable housing but raised concerns about project height, unit sizes, traffic and parking impacts, wind at a corner site and the absence of environmental and traffic studies. Appellant Russell Wald told the board the new building would "exceed height restrictions ... create deep concern for the neighborhood," raise traffic and safety issues on 20th and Ninth streets, and that the project merited further study rather than expedited ministerial approval.
Project sponsors, including Laurel Muniz of the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center and land-use counsel Lauren Chang, argued the project replaces a burned, derelict pre‑1900 SRO, adds new affordable homes, preserves the facade, and complied with AB 20 11 and the state density‑bonus framework. William Wilcox of the Mayor—s Office of Housing and Community Development told the board that delaying the hearing could jeopardize $24,000,000 in state funding tied to the project and risk the tax‑credit award.
Technical testimony clarified unit sizes and code compliance. The project architect and DBI staff explained area measurements: DBI confirmed the smallest unit is 243 square feet (gross), which the inspector said exceeds the San Francisco minimum of 220 square feet. Planning staff said the project met AB 20 11 eligibility criteria, had undergone routine technical review (including streetscape and building‑code checks), and that ministerial review under the statute constrains the board—s scope to objective standards.
Commissioners repeatedly noted that state law narrows local discretionary review; Deputy City Attorney Jen Hoover told the board its usual de novo standard did not apply and that the board—s task was to confirm whether objective standards were applied. After deliberation the board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit.
What happened next: the board denied a separate continuance request earlier in the hearing (motion denied 5-0), proceeded with the appeal, heard public comment and expert testimony, and concluded under the ministerial standard that the permit should stand.
Next steps: the permit-holder can proceed with permit finalization and financing steps; the board—s denial is limited to the ministerial standard and does not preclude other administrative or legal remedies available under law.
Representative quotes from the hearing included the funding concern from the mayor—s office: "Delaying this today could lose the project $24,000,000 in state funds that has been awarded," and the technical confirmation from DBI: "the smallest unit is 243 square feet which is 23 square feet larger than the minimum unit."
