Buzz Golden Hill (2995 B St, San Diego, CA 92102) — 36-unit, 573 sqft-avg micro-unit product; platform shows a 2021 build year against your 2016, so flag which is right when you correct the form. The bigger gap: there's no operating statement on file for this property (financials are all blank) and no rent-roll sample confidence, so I need a T12 or a basis to underwrite off — pick one below, and attach the T12 if you have it since that's what will actually move the number.

DECLINE at $9.25MM — the collateral supports about $5.0MM

Buzz Golden Hill's fundamentals cap out well below the ask. This isn't a structuring problem — DSCR runs 0.73x at the requested balance against a 1.35x floor, and no plausible rate or occupancy scenario closes that gap at $9.25MM. The number to work from is the counter-offer.

The ask. Borrower is seeking a $9.25MM non-recourse perm refinance on Buzz Golden Hill — a 36-unit, ~573 sf-average-unit mid-rise at 2995 B St in San Diego's Golden Hill submarket — targeting 65% LTV and an 8.5% debt yield ahead of a maturing fixed-rate loan. No T12 or rent roll was provided at intake, so the lender case is built off datamart benchmarks: a 30-year, no-IO, 10-year structure priced off the current Freddie Mac CME 65%-LTV quote of 5.93% 1, against a 1.35x DSCR floor pulled from that same product 1 and the borrower's own 8.5% debt-yield target.

Coverage. Lender-case NOI comes to $482,877 2 — built on a market rent of $2,040/unit/month, the zip 92102 studio (0-bed) in-place rent 3, since the property's compact unit size matches that typology far better than the zip's blended $2,488 average, which implies an ~800 sf typical unit. Vacancy is floored at 7.46%, the Central San Diego submarket rate 4 (well above the zip's own 1.9%, but that's the field the model calls for), and OpEx floors at 42% of EGI, the higher of the San Diego MSA benchmark (40.5%) and the multifamily class norm 5. Capitalized at the San Diego multifamily cap rate of 4.93% 6, that NOI supports a lender value of $9.79MM 7 — which lines up closely with the county's own assessed value of $9.71MM 8, a good independent check given there's no T12 to reconcile against. At the requested $9.25MM, that's 94% LTV, nowhere near the borrower's 65% target, because the target assumed a $14.2MM valuation the income approach doesn't support. DSCR is what actually binds: 0.73x against the 1.35x floor 9, and debt yield lands at 5.22% versus the 8.5% target 9. Supportable proceeds: $5,009,129 10 — a $4.24MM gap to the ask 10. Sizing to the DSCR floor instead produces a 9.64% debt yield and 51% LTV 11 — proceeds-only fixes don't touch this; the property simply doesn't throw off enough cash.

Getting out at maturity. Running the requested $9.25MM balance through the schedule (illustrative, since it's not what would actually get funded), the loan amortizes to $7.73MM at year 10 12. NOI grows to $588,624 13 even at a conservative 2%/year, but a takeout lender at that point can only support $6.05MM against the balance — a $1.68MM refi gap 14 that persists a full decade out. Nothing about time cures this loan at this size.

Where it breaks. It doesn't need a shock to break — it's broken at close. NOI would need to run 37% above the lender case just to reach break-even at 1.00x on the requested debt service 15, which implies occupancy above 112% or rent 22% above the market benchmark 16 — both impossible. Even dropping the rate 100 bps to the current cap rate (4.93%) only lifts DSCR to 0.82x, still underwater.

If it defaults. At the requested balance, recovery runs 73.8% of par at a 20% value decline, with 11.6% loss severity 17 — below the 90% recovery threshold the model flags. That's a secondary concern next to the coverage problem, but it confirms the basis has no cushion at this loan size.

Sponsor & guarantee. No sponsor financials were provided at intake, which caps any approval at "Approve with Structure pending guarantor review" 18 — moot here since the fundamentals independently drive a Decline.

Collateral & market check. San Diego multifamily cap rates have compressed to 4.93%, the tightest reading in the trailing two years 6, which helps value but can't offset the revenue shortfall. Submarket occupancy has softened to 92.5%, down 227 bps over the trailing 12 months against 7,168 multifamily permits issued in the MSA over the same period 19 — a market adding supply while absorption cools, not the backdrop for underwriting aggressive rent growth. One data flag worth resolving before this goes further: the platform shows a 2021 year-built against your 2016 — worth confirming which is right, though it doesn't move this verdict.

Structure. Given the fundamentals, there's no structural fix that gets to $9.25MM — the counter-offer is the deal:

• Proceeds: $5.0MM (54% of the ask)
• Pricing: 5.93% (or shop Fannie/Freddie/life-co alternatives shown in the comp set)
• 30-year amortization, no IO
• DSCR covenant at 1.35x with a cash-sweep trigger
• Non-recourse with standard bad-boy carveouts
• Call protection: 24-month lockout, 3-month open window, yield maintenance

Bottom line. The gap here isn't a lender being conservative — it's that a 36-unit, ~$2,000/unit-rent micro-studio asset generates about $483K of NOI, and $9.25MM of debt needs roughly double that to clear a 1.35x floor. The single thing most worth doing before shopping this further: pull an actual T12 and rent roll. If in-place rents or occupancy run meaningfully above the market-benchmark proxy used here, the number moves — but it would need to move by 60%+ to reach the $9.25MM ask, which a T12 is unlikely to produce on a 100%-leased 36-unit building already renting at market.