Development Committee

Comments and Recommendations

Date: April 15, 2015

Development Address: 1301 16th Street/Wisconsin

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 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 that reduced the number of total apartments from

234 to 176, with a focus on somewhat larger units. The exterior design and scale of the building

appears to be unchanged at this point, and the original 234-unit proposal remains on file at the

Planning Department. The height is out of scale with neighboring properties and will block vistas

from Jackson Park. A more active ground level with additional commercial space would improve

the pedestrian experience on 16th street and provide neighborhood-serving amenities.

The committee appreciates the revised unit mix, but expects to see a more family friendly

design and more accessible common open space. A number of interior bedrooms don’t appear

to have windows in the revised plan, and the 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. Developer contributions to publicly accessible open space, onsite or offsite,

would help alleviate neighborhood concerns over cumulative impacts on parks and recreational

facilities.

The Committee expressed grave concerns regarding remediation of contaminated soil at the

site. 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." With a proposed change in land use

to residential/commercial mixed use and the proximity of “sensitive receptors” at Jackson Park

and nearby schools, we believe the project should undergo the scrutiny of a focused EIR, and

that contaminated soil at be excavated and removed as hazardous waste, to ensure that future

residents be protected from hazardous conditions and that any volatile materials released during

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 –

remediation are contained.

In addition to soil contamination, the site’s instability makes it difficult for new construction.

The 2013 Rockridge Geotechnical investigation on file at the Planning Department states that,

“the primary geotechnical concern at the project site is the presence of up to 30 feet of

loose/weak soil underlying the site.” The report concludes that, with soil prone to caving, drilled

piers or driven piles are not appropriate foundations for new construction. But the current

proposal says, “The foundation design being contemplated employs a relatively thin foundation

and the use of drilled piers and grade beams, in order to avoid removal of existing soil.” The

developer seemed to be unaware of the geotechnical investigation recommending against this

practice or the implications for the removal of contaminated soil.

Our understanding is that the developer has withdrawn this revision. No further public

meetings are scheduled at this time.