As 870 Harrison currently stands (above): a two-story industrial building providing 6,120 square feet of production, distribution, and repair (PDR) and accessory office space behind a small parking lot. As proposed as a six-story mixed-use building:
Twenty-six residential units (18 one-bedroom, 8 two-bedroom) over either 4,050 or 2,560 square feet of ground-floor PDR (Planning Commissions Resolution 17707 “allows for reduced PDR replacement requirements if 25 percent of the lot depth is dedicated to an at-grade rear yard”) and a below grade garage with 12 residential spaces, one commercial space, one van-accessible space, two car share spaces, and eight spaces for bikes.
Twenty-five days from receiving a finalized Mitigated Negative Declaration. And once again, that’s a good thing if you’re a developer or pro-development.
Somebody MUST be able to stop this travesty! Surely there’s historical significance to the painted over graffiti patches. The harm to the indigenous Cuervo billboards alone must require an EIR or something. If this cannot be stopped, SoMa won’t look like *anything* like Bayview anymore. Where’s the outrage!?!
It bettir come wit 8000 parkin spots!!
*Yawn* another mixed used low rise bldg in SOMA…there’s got to be other ideas out there.
Nothing special, but I like it. PDR use with five floors of housing above? More please.
Have no fear: some planning commissioner will think of a way to reduce the number of parking spaces, because of “transit first” or the neighborhood is “transit rich.” I have dubbed these arguments “rich first” — rich people get to have cars first, poor don’t.
Love it! We’ve got waaa–aay too much PDR job-providing lots in SOMA. What we really need are more over-priced empty condoloftartments for the coming hordes of laid-off Yahoogle scooter jockeys.
My devious plan is to wait for it to sit empty for five years, then take it over, carve each unit into six smaller units, and rent them out as by-the-hour crack dens, art studios, or porn production suites. Where’s my loan?
Have no fear: some planning commissioner will think of a way to reduce the number of parking spaces, because of “transit first” or the neighborhood is “transit rich.” I have dubbed these arguments “rich first” — rich people get to have cars first, poor don’t.
Bizarre comment, considering the proposal from the developer already has LESS parking than is permitted under current codes for this site. But clearly the market doesn’t know that this site needs more.
I tried to bite my tongue but the “postive” in the title is a bit much for me 🙁
Or did I miss something?
[Editor’s Note: Only an invitation to replace an editor…]
Eight spaces of bike parking for twenty six units seems kind of stupid. If full, this building would house at least 34 people (probably more) and it’s common sense for each to have a bike spot, especially since there are only 12 parking spots.
^^^Are you seriously suggesting 34 bike parking spots are needed?