The Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association Development Committee will use the

attached guidelines as criteria to evaluate the projects proposed within the neighborhoods

served by the Boosters. Not all criteria may be applicable to a given project.

After having considered each criteria, the Development Committee will make a holistic

evaluation of the project, which the project developer should consider prior to a presentation at

a meeting of the Boosters’ membership. Please note that any comments from the Development

Committee are interim, and they may not by relied upon as indication of neighborhood support

for a project. Only the membership of the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association may

offer an endorsement of a project, and any material changes to a project made subsequent to

any such endorsement shall render the endorsement void.

Developers or project sponsors are asked to submit, in PDF format, available floorplans,

landscape plans, elevations, renderings, and any other representations of the building (together,

the “Project Plans”), along with a completed copy of the development criteria, at least one week

prior to meeting with the Development Committee. The Project Plans should have detail

sufficient for the Development Committee to evaluate the Development Criteria on the basis of

the Project Plans alone. Copies of the Project Plans will be retained by the Boosters, and will be

used for Boosters business (which may include, without limitation, distribution to the Boosters’

email list and publishing to the Boosters’ website).

Developers are asked to complete the attached Project Cover Sheet, which should accompany

the Project Plans.

* * * * *

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

Potrero Boosters Development Committee Project Cover Sheet

Project Address: 1601 Mariposa

Project Sponsor: Related

Developer: Related

Project Contact:

Address:

Phone:

Email:

Susan Smartt

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1050

San Francisco, Ca 94104

Susan.smartt@related.com

Architect(s): David Baker Architects

Landscape Architect(s): Fletcher Landscape

Assigned City Planner: Chris Townes

Lot Square Footage: 142,284 sf

Square Feet of Built Space:

Residential:

Retail:

Office:

PDR:

Residential: 238,429 sf

Retail: 5,593 sf

Office: None

PDR: 3,962 sf

Public Open Space (Sq. Ft.): 21,505 sf

Total Parking:

Residential:

Guest:

Commercial:

Car Share:

Residential: 234 spaces

Commercial: 12 spaces

PDR: 3 spaces

Car Share: 6 spaces

Total Residential Units:

Studios:

1 Bedroom:

2 Bedroom:

3+ Bedroom:

69 Average Sq. Ft.: 440-550 sf

109 Average Sq. Ft.: 600-740 sf

111 Average Sq. Ft.: 860-1,100 sf

69 Average Sq. Ft.: 1,050-1,400 sf

Total Bicycle Parking:

Residential:

Guest:

Residential: Class 1 350; Class 2: 15. Retail: 4

Expected Approval Timeline:

Planning Commission Hearing September 24, 2015

Date of meeting with Development Committee: August 19, 2015

The undersigned acknowledges and agrees that (i) any comments from the Development

Committee are interim, and they may not by relied upon as indication of neighborhood support

for a project; (ii) only the membership of the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association may

offer an endorsement of a project; and (iii) any material changes to a project made subsequent to

any such endorsement shall render the endorsement void.

Susan Smartt Executive Vice Pres Related 7/23/15 Signature Print Name Title Entity Date

Potrero Boosters Development Committee Development Criteria

Development Criteria: Comments:

1. Is the overall project design sensitive to the neighborhood surrounding the subject project? Consideration will be made to neighborhood character, scale, light, air quality, and vistas.

Yes, the project massing and scale has been designed to reflect the unique character of each of the surrounding streets. For example, the Arkansas elevation reflects the more residential character of the street and breaks the building down into smaller pieces and the Carolina elevation reflects the more industrial nature of Carolina.

2. Is the project’s massing sufficiently broken-up relative to the size of its parcel?

Yes. The project is divided into two separate buildings, separated by N/S and E/W public mid block passageways. Each building is further broken down with street sensitive articulation.

3. Are there any hazardous material on site? If so, what are they and how will they be remediated.

There are three existing underground tanks which have leaked fuel into the soil. The tanks will be removed and the soil remediated under a cleanup plan approved by DTSC. The contaminated soil will be removed and replaced with clean soil. The excavation effort will take about six days of active work, spread out over a two week period. We have told Live Oak School that we are prepared to undertake this work next summer when school is on summer break.

4. Does the project incorporate or preserve any historic elements on the site?

N/A

5. Does the project incorporate additional family friendly and accessible design (with respect to common open space or play areas, the number of elevator lobbies, and hallway length)?

The project incorporates 3-bedroom family –friendly townhomes with stoops along the Public Pedestrian N/S passageway. The Passageway incorporates family friendly areas for “interpretive play”, using a combination of softscape plantings and boulders. The project has accessible at-grade entrances on all 4 street frontages and also includes 3 at-grade entrances from the passageways. Elevator lobbies and bike rooms have been spread throughout the site.

6. What is the percentage of 2 and 3 bedroom units in the project (with the goal being at least 10% 3 BR and an aggregate of 60% being 2 BR or larger)?

41% of the project will be 2 and 3 bedroom units

7. Does the project include onsite affordable housing, and to what extent does the amount of affordable housing exceed the mandate (with the Boosters’ goal of at least 30% of units affordable)?

The project includes 20% on site affordable units. The mandated requirement is 14.4%

8. Does the project include publicly accessible indoor space?

There is an on-site meeting room that will be available to the community

– 2 –

Development Criteria: Comments:

9. Does the project include publicly accessible open green space?

Yes. The project includes 28,294 sf of publicly accessible open green space. The open space will provide a public promenade and plazas that connect 18th Street to Mariposa. Design inspiration for the promenade comes from the creek that uses to exist on the site. This green connection will be an organic and flowing walk, that opens into a series of larger plazas to the north. These plazas will have softly programmed areas, that support community activities with a stage and sculptural elements that provide unstructured play opportunities.

10. Does the project take appropriate advantage of its zoning (e.g., urban mixed use) and its location to activate the streetscape, engage the public, and enhance street safety?

Yes, the entire project has active ground floor uses on each street. The streetscape design is adding bulb outs and other enhancements to create additional greening along the streets and opportunity for outdoor seating.

11. To what extent is planned commercial space neighborhood serving, available for locally owned business, or available for non-profits?

The commercial space has been designed to accommodate neighborhood-servicing business. The space is designed to be easily divisible into smaller scale spaces with distinct and separate entries activating the street on Carolina and Mariposa. A bicycle non-profit – Yellow Bike – will be given space at the front of the bike room (rent free) on Carolina street.

12. Does the project incorporate PDR space? The project incorporates 4,000 square feet of divisible PDR space along Carolina Street

13. Does the project include the maximum allowable vehicle parking?

Yes.

14. To what extent does the project exceed the minimum requirement of on-site car-share spaces or otherwise support public transit?

The project is required to provide 2 Car Share spaces. 6 spaces are being provided inside the garage with a dedicated entrance.

15. Does the project take maximum advantage of bicycle infrastructure for residents, guests, customers and employees? Consideration will be made to the use of bike storage and parking (including one class-one space per bedroom), bike racks and participation in bike-share.

The project incorporates 350 class 1 bike parking spaces in 3 designated bike rooms located at key entrances to the site. As noted above there is a bike shop which will be used by Yellow Bike and residents.

16. To what extent does the project improve the pedestrian experience (where positive features may include setbacks, sidewalk widening, plantings and other greening, street lighting, benches, etc.)?

The project incorporates generous sidewalk widening, sidewalk seating, 3 planted bulbouts, new street planting and trees, as well as building setbacks to incorporate generous planting buffers and residential stoops

17. Has the developer coordinated with other nearby developments with respect to the streetscape and other features?

Project Sponsor has been meeting with community groups and neighbors over the last two years. These conversations are continuing and ongoing.

– 3 –

Development Criteria: Comments:

18. How does the project make use of “best practices” in green infrastructure and energy efficiency (such as with water usage and solar panels).

Leed for Homes Silver or Greenpoint Rated. On site storm water management, water efficient landscaping and irrigation, substantial bike parking on site, energy star appliances, low VOC, recycled construction waste, electric car stations in garage.

19. Are the operational features (loading docks, garage doors, garbage areas, loading zones, etc.) of the project sensitive to the surrounding neighbors and uses?

Yes. The buried parking garage is divided into two distinct portions. Each portion opens onto a separate street in order to reduce overall traffic impacts. Loading zone useage on Mariposa is being restricted to provide Live Oak queing during school hours. Trash rooms are located inside the garage and all service spaces not required to be on-street are located within the project and buffered from the street with planting

20. Are utilities undergrounded? No.

21. Will the development participate in the financing of the Potrero Hill Shuttle?

Yes.

22. Are any impact fees paid in-kind targeted directly towards Boosters supported or endorsed projects?

No

23. To what extent does the project hire local contractors and workers at prevailing wages?

The project will hire union workers

24. What exceptions from the Planning Code are being sought?

Horizontal Mass Reduction (Code Sec 270.1), Off-Street Loading (Code Sec 152.1), Floor to Floor Ground Floor Heights (Code Secc 145.2) Rear

Yard Configuration (Code Sec 134(f)

25. What outreach have you done with nearby neighbors? What have been their concerns and how have you addressed them?

See attached sheet

26. Have you received a PPA letter from the Planning Department, or a design review from the UDAT or Residential Design Team? Please attach.

See attached

* * * * *

Development Committee

Comments and Recommendations

Date: August 19, 2015

Development Address: 1601 Mariposa

We have reviewed the project 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.

This large UMU project (299 units, 3.36 acres) has been discussed at Boosters meetings and at

separate neighborhood meetings over the past two years. The developer submitted a project

revision to the Planning Department in July 2015, and the proposal is tentatively scheduled for

Planning Commission consideration in October.

The developer attached these comments to the Development Committee questionnaire, noting

changes in the most recent proposal.

In response to issues raised by the community - particularly through comments to the Draft

EIR - 1601 Mariposa has made substantial changes to the project, including:

• Reducing the number of units to 299 (from 316)

• Designating 20 % of the rental units affordable (the current requirement is 14%)

• Significantly Increasing the setback from Live Oak School from ten to almost forty feet

• Adding a new east-west passage way

• Widening the mid-block Greenway entrance at Mariposa

• Added a garage ingress/egress on Arkansas (in addition to 18th Street) in response to

neighborhood concerns about queuing

Additionally, Related has decided to replace much of the retail with PDR to lessen traffic

concerns and has contributed to the signalization of the intersection at Mariposa and

Pennsylvania to further mitigate impacts.

A Draft EIR was published in January 2015, leading to some of the comments and revisions

noted above. Both the EIR and a Large Project Authorization (granting exceptions and

entitlements) will be considered at the same time at the Planning Commission. The Hearing is

tentatively scheduled for October.

Affordable Housing and Unit Mix

The Committee noted the need for more 3 bedroom units (there are 10 in the current proposal)

The project does meet the City requirement to provide 2 bedrooms or more in 40% of their

units, and although there is no minimum requirement for units with more than 2 bedrooms, the

Committee urges the inclusion of additional 3 bedroom units to address the need for larger

units in a neighborhood desperate for family-friendly housing.

The developer is exceeding the requirement for onsite affordable housing, with 20% of the units

affordable for those earning 50% of the median income in San Francisco. As a result, the project

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 –

qualifies for a state-supported financing program and accelerated review by the City. The

Committee encouraged the developer to add middle-income housing (for those making 80-

150% of San Francisco median income) to approach the Boosters goal of 30% affordable

housing. 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, and given the opportunity, will

attempt to draft an agreement with the developers on this project.

Height

The project is built within the 40-foot height restriction under the Planning Code, but there may

be an opportunity to reduce the impact on the neighbors across 18th Street by removing what is

labeled as level 4 in the East building – there are only 9 units at that level, and removing that

floor results in a fairly minor profile at the corner of 18th Street and Arkansas Street. (Such a

floor reduction was an important last step toward community support of the development at

The Potrero, the development above Whole Foods, at Mariposa and Rhode Island streets.)

Design

The project will use a combination of cement plaster, board form concrete, metal and wood.

The Committee expressed support for the use of wood and avoidance of corrugated metal.

There was discussion about a plan for sustainability, and specifically stormwater

capture/recycling capacity; it is a problematic site for that with a sewer easement running the

length of the north-south passageway.

The Committee appreciates the inclusion of two public passageways. It was noted that the east-

west passageway varies in width from 25 to 36 feet and could perhaps be widened in the

narrower areas. The Committee would like to see more greening and less hardscape in both

passageways, and encourages the developer to include more park-like gathering areas in the

design.

The project sponsor has committed to install windows at Live Oak School along the east-west

passageway, helping create sound separation between the two buildings and providing an

easement for operable windows. However, committee members expressed concern that the

balconies of the East building could look directly into classrooms at Live Oak School across the

passageway. With the school already in place, the project sponsor could find an opportunity to

design the new building’s layout so direct observation is more difficult.

Community Space

The Committee appreciates the inclusion of an Indoor ‘flex space’ onsite for public use. As the

space is rather small at 950sf, the Committee is interested in seeing a more significant

commitment to onsite community space.

Jackson Playground park Improvements

The Committee is very supportive of a potential developer commitment to fund improvements

to the park at Jackson Playground, particularly in conjunction with other stakeholders in the

area and the Friends of Jackson Playground. These improvements would have to be coordinated

through a development agreement of some sort. Like the affordable housing concept noted

above, this kind of agreement is uncharted territory with City government.

– 3 –

Utility Undergrounding

The developer noted on the questionnaire that they do not plan to underground the power lines

for this project. The Committee considers this to be a significant mistake; it has been a

longstanding priority for the Boosters to pursue underground wiring in the neighborhood, and

the prospect of nearly 300 units with overhead wires for electricity, television, and Internet

connections is a recipe for substantial visual pollution.

Reference for discussion

During Committee discussion, the Reduced Density Alternative considered in the project’s

Environmental Impact Report was mentioned as a point of comparison. The following quote

from the EIR is included for reference.

The Reduced Density Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative

because it would to some extent meet the project sponsor’s basic objectives, while

avoiding all of the traffic-related significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed

project. This impact reduction would be achieved because this alternative would have

fewer residential units and commercial space at the site compared to the proposed

project, and therefore have associated reductions in vehicle traffic compared to the

proposed project. In addition, the Reduced Density Alternative would avoid or further

reduce the less-than-significant and significant but mitigable impacts for other

environmental topics, including those related to the transit/pedestrian/bicycle

environment, shadow, and recreation due to the decrease in the residential and

commercial uses on the site and reduced building heights.

The Reduced Density Alternative, under which the project site would be developed with

114 residential units, 3,510 square feet of commercial space, 106 off-street parking

spaces within a partially below-grade garage, and associated improvements. The total

building area would be 145,070 gsf and building heights would be two to three stories

and would not exceed 30 feet.

The developer is expected to make a presentation to membership at the August meeting.