Development Committee

Comments and Recommendations

Date:      October  12,  2015    Development  Address:    1301  16th  Street/Wisconsin    This  large  project,  with  an  emphasis  on  small  studio  apartments  and  a  total  of  234  units,  was  heard  at  a  previous  Potrero  Boosters  general  membership  meeting.  The  design  of  the  building  and  the  emphasis  on  small  studio  apartments  led  to  a  substantial  number  of  complaints  about  its  compatibility  with  the  neighborhood.    The  developer  asked  to  return  to  the  Development  Committee  to  consider  an  alternate  design.      We  have  reviewed  the  project  revision  (without  project  drawings  or  a  new  questionnaire)  and  as  a  committee  do  not  endorse  or  oppose  it;  that  is  up  to  the  full  membership.  All  comments  are  preliminary  and  offered  in  the  expectation  of  a  project  that  will  benefit  the  neighborhood.    The  revised  design,  not  yet  submitted  to  the  Planning  Department,  is  described  as  “10  studio  units,  54  one-­‐bedroom  units,  66  two-­‐bedroom  units,  and  44  three-­‐bedroom  units.”    The  average  unit  size  varies  from  620  sf  for  one-­‐bedroom  units  to  945  sf  for  three-­‐bedroom  units    This  makes  for  an  apparent  mix  of  63%  2+  bedroom  units.    But  in  discussion  with  the  committee,  the  project  sponsor  acknowledged  that  20%  of  the  units  have  “nested’  bedrooms,  meaning  bedrooms  that  don’t  have  windows.  Such  rooms  aren’t  considered  to  be  “bedrooms”  under  Planning  Department  dwelling  unit  definitions,  although  they  do  fit  the  concept  of  “2BR  +  den”  that  has  attracted  some  support  at  neighborhood  meetings  in  past  years.    Presuming  that  the  nested  bedrooms  are  in  the  2BR  and  3BR  units  brings  us  to  a  revised  43%  2+  bedroom  units,  which  is  still  slightly  above  Planning  code.    The  Committee  appreciates  the  inclusion  of  higher  bedroom  counts  in  the  units,  assuming  that  they  will  comply  with  the  UMU  requirements  of  40%  of  more.    16%  of  the  units  are  designated  as  on-­‐site  Below  Market  Rate;  of  those  28  units,  11  will  be  2BRs  and  6  will  be  3BRs,  exceeding  the  required  14%.    The  Committee  appreciates  the  commitment  to  affordable  3-­‐bedroom  units  in  the  project.    We  are  still  interested  in  pursuing  the  possibility  of  any  middle-­‐income  units  in  addition  to  the  Below  Market  Rate  units,  since  current  BMR  requirements  which  do  not  include  a  mandate  for  middle  income  housing  have  resulted  in  a  large  deficit  for  this  demographic.  (We  are  currently  researching  ways  to  enforce  an  increased  affordable  housing  commitment.)    The  revised  building  design  features  a  setback  for  the  top  two  floors,  which  is  an  improvement  over  the  original  block  design.    The  revised  design  still  drew  comments  from  the  Committee  referring  to  its  repetitive  form  and  large  scale.    The  height  continues  to  be  out  of  scale  with  neighboring  properties  and  will  block  vistas  from  Jackson  Park.  There  are  opportunities  to  present  multiple  faces  to  different  streets,  and  to  mix  the  windows  and  other  designs  to  give  the  appearance  of  separate  buildings  instead  of  one  very  large  lot.      

P O T R E R O B O O S T E R S N E I G H B O R H O O D A S S O C I A T I O N

S E R V I N G T H E H I L L S I N C E 1 9 2 6

– 2 –

Without  new  drawings  or  a  revised  questionnaire  for  review,  the  Committee  is  unable  to  fully  consider  any  revised  open  space  plan  for  the  project.    The  previous  Committee  report  noted:  

The  previous  plan’s  courtyard  open  space  (“significantly  more  than  required  by  code”  according  to  the  questionnaire)  isn’t  accessible  to  all  units,  with  a  number  of  units  limited  to  balcony  space.  The  addition  of  open  space  is  critical,  with  Jackson  Park  unable  to  serve  the  needs  of  current  residents,  let  alone  the  thousands  of  new  residents  expected  in  the  immediate  area.  Contributions  to  publicly  accessible  open  space,  onsite  or  offsite,  would  help  alleviate  neighborhood  concerns  over  cumulative  impacts  on  parks  and  recreational  facilities.  

 The  project  sponsors  appear  to  have  updated  their  construction  plans  due  to  the  instability  of  the  soil  conditions,  moving  to  torque-­‐down  piles  instead  of  drilled  piers  (mentioned  in  the  previous  proposal).    Without  new  drawings,  a  new  questionnaire  or  an  approved  Site  Mitigation  Plan,  the  Committee  is  unable  to  review  or  discuss  any  plans  regarding  the  contaminated  soil  at  the  site.    The  Committee’s  preference  is  to  dispose  of  all  excavated  or  exposed  contaminated  soil  as  efficiently  as  possible;  the  project  sponsors  believe  they  can  cap  most  of  the  fill  soil  in  place.      From  the  previous  Committee  report:  

The  site  was  previously  owned  by  Richland  Oil  Company,  and  an  earlier  Department  of  Public  Health  review  of  the  location  required  no  remediation  "as  long  as  the  site  remained  capped  by  the  concrete  foundation  or  land  use  changed."      

If  the  Boosters  could  receive  a  copy  of  the  Site  Mitigation  Plan  when  it  is  prepared,  community  members  would  have  a  chance  to  comment  on  the  plan  when  the  Department  of  Public  Health  considers  it.    The  Transportation  Study  for  the  project  omitted  any  studies  of  Mariposa  Street  intersections.  As  this  is  one  of  the  most  congested  streets  in  the  area,  and  the  primary  access  to  280,  It  should  have  been  included  in  the  Study.    The  revised  plan  has  increased  the  commercial  space  to  8131  sf  and  includes  eight  ‘flex’  units  on  the  ground  floor,  offering  potential  maker/PDR  or  arts  uses  or  small-­‐scale  retail,  depending  on  the  marketplace  at  the  time.  The  previous  Committee  report  noted:  

A  more  active  ground  level  with  additional  commercial  space  would  improve  the  pedestrian  experience  on  16th  street  and  provide  neighborhood-­‐serving  amenities.  

 This  project  is  not  yet  calendared  at  the  Planning  Commission.    The  project  sponsor  is  seeking  approval  by  the  Commission  before  the  end  of  2015.