Preliminary permits have been filed for an eight-story apartment complex at 222 Capp Street in the Mission District, San Francisco. The application provides a vivid rendering of the infill that could replace a surface parking lot in the heart of the dense neighborhood with 70 new apartments. 2101 MS Property Holdings LLC is listed as the property owner.
Perry Architects is responsible for the design. Initial renderings shared by the firm show a contemporary urban infill with a mix of projecting window frames and subtle facade articulation. The exterior will be clad with metal panels, cement plaster, glass Juliette balconies, and wood slats.
222 Capp Street pedestrian view, rendering by Perry Architects
222 Capp Street, illustration by Perry Architects
The 84-foot-tall structure will yield around 56,980 square feet, including 51,400 square feet for housing and 5,560 square feet for parking. Unit types vary with 21 studios, 21 one-bedrooms, and 28 two-bedrooms. Parking will be included for 12 cars and 70 bicycles.
The developer uses Senate Bill 330, Senate Bill 423, and the State Density Bonus law to streamline the approval process and increase residential capacity. The initial plan uses a nearly 100% density bonus based on the base zoning, which would allow for 36 units in a five-story complex. This is achieved with zoning waivers requested relating to limits on the height, rear yard size, open space, and unit exposure.
The 0.21-acre property is located along Capp Street between 17th and 18th Street. Future residents will be around the corner from Mission Street, and just under two blocks away from the 16th Street Mission BART Station.
222 Capp Street, image via Google Street View
City records show the property last sold in 2018 for $4 million. The project team has yet to reply to a request for comment to confirm certain information.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
YIMBYs and other capitalist dupes who think that private sector developers will always proceed at best speed toward the highest and best use of land have a lot to answer for when it comes to project like this one. The owner has been sitting on this property for seven years(!) and they are just now filing preliminary permits for an eight-story apartment complex? The City’s regulatory burden is not the problem here, its the reluctance of our local real estate class to a actually build when the demand is present.
lol
I would venture a guess that the pandemic probably slowed development here.
If the city made it easier to build, they probably would have started this project earlier
You do know that there are 80,000 units of unbuilt housing in the pipeline in San Francisco. Guess what? It’s not being built because it doesn’t pencil. Nothing to do with the City or the NIMBYs. Trickle-down housing just doesn’t work.
Stop using words you don’t understand. Trickle-down has a specific meaning that doesn’t align with how you’re using it. It definitionally means giving tax cuts and money directly to wealthy individuals and large corporations under the disproven belief that they will use that to create additional jobs or pass the money down to employees.
I think it applies here perfectly. YIMBYs think that by building more luxury housing that it will free up lower-priced housing for the lower classes. While this might work in Witchita, it won’t work in a city like San Francisco where you have a limitless supply of well-paid tech bros and overseas investors.
That’s not trickle down. That’s filtering, a proven phenomenon backed up by a mountain of academic research and real world data. They are not remotely the same thing. Instead of being factually wrong and then just reinforcing that you’re factually wrong, try looking at real world evidence and stop admitting your own ignorance.
Ima call it trickle-down if I want, because that is what it is. I refuse to use YIMBY, aka, Big Development, propaganda. Trickle-down, aka Voodoo Economics, was discredited back in the 80s. You might like to know that.
The city’s median length of time to get a bldg permit is over 620 days. Most projects that started in 2020 took until 2022 to get permits. Nothing to see here, folks.
You’ve never had a problem with private, shady, unaccountable non-profits being handed public money and spending years not building the projects they were given funding for.
Curious.
1000% 👏
“capitalist dupes”… The reality is we live in a capitalist system. If there were sufficient government funding for enough social housing to accommodate everyone who needs homes, that would be great. But there isn’t, so we rely on private developers to build most of our housing supply. And they have to wait until the costs to build (materials, interest rates, city fees, etc) are low enough and their revenue (sales or rents) will be high enough to provide a return on their investment and convince a bank to lend them money to build. The result in boom-and-bust cycles of building. What to do about that? Reduce the costs imposed by the public sector (fees, time to get permits, etc) and/or raise taxes to fund more subsidized or social housing. I’m in favor of both.
Gee, developers hate making money, according to you.
Don’t call yourself ‘Brahma’. Brahma is literally ‘The Creator’ in terms of deities, and would approve of all new construction to mitigate shortages.
You’re unbelievable. How much do I pay you?
Look at what the non profit activists have done with 16th and Mission LOL A decade of chaos, filth and death! You hate capitalism because it proves that NGOs are worthless scammers hiding behind faux progressivism.
Everything you say is true. But you made Drewl mad. Drewl wants to blame it all on everybody apart from the for-profit housing industry that has failed time and time again to produce affordable housing for anyone.
Or rather, it’s prop 13 facilitating land speculation.
Get rid of prop 13 and you get rid of this behavior.
The CEQA exemption for infill development got signed into law yesterday, and coupled with the end of discretionary review in SF, there can’t be extra required approvals and nobody can use to delay/stop this.
Was thinking the same thing… esp the timing of the CEQA exemption passing.
No more extorting and delaying development, especially in places like the Mission with its smattering of non-profits and segregationist groups launching bad faith lawsuits and discretionary review requests.
If only…
Its pretty sad for dumb comments to come out about developers . I just received my building permit after 1173 days waiting for a 100% Code Compliant single family home and an separate ADU with over $383k in fees and costs. ( not counting carry costs) This is not uncommon and the City hides the truth continually and the ignorant neighbors and NIMBYS can delay at no cost. We are afraid to say anything, or we are targeted by the Departments when we do.
The Chinese could probably build a 50 story building in 1173 days.
Do it. This will bring more foot traffic to the block and will hopefully help keep Capp street usable for the residents and help reduce encampments.
You’ll destroy the neighborhood’s character