CFAH

As we first reported in January with respect to Related’s proposal to demolish three Potrero Hill industrial structures between Mariposa and 18th Streets and construct two buildings with 291 dwelling units over 5,300 square feet of commercial space and parking for 235 cars across from Potrero’s Jackson Playground and Anchor Brewing:

While we haven’t yet seen the design, the site is zoned for 40 feet and the development includes a mid-block pedestrian mews, connecting 18th and Mariposa Streets. And with 291 proposed units, which were not counted in Planning’s last report, the housing pipeline for the Potrero Hill/Showplace Square area is now over 3,000 units.

A plugged-in tipster has now delivered the proposed site plan for 1601 Mariposa designed by David Baker + Partners which includes the parcel at the corner of 18th and Arkansas which we initially missed. Click the site plan above to enlarge.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by alison

    Not enough open space… the Preliminary Project Assessment shows only 16%. And those units running along the south wall of Live Oak school are a mere 15 feet from classrooms. Light and air, anyone?

  2. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    I wonder what the unit sizes are going to be here. With 291 packed in this amount of space I’m guessing most will be under 1,000 sq.ft. Pot Hill is a fairly family-friendly neighborhood but this may bring in more singles and DINK couples. Anyway, good news for the “Potrero Village” businesses on 18th. And hopefully we’ll see some new shops and restaurants.

  3. Posted by alison

    The majority of units will be studios (starting at 480 sq. ft) and 1 bedrooms.

  4. Posted by Reynolds

    TO THE DEVELOPERS:
    I am tentatively in favor of the project. However, a few conditions must be met before I approve:
    1.) Aesthetics must be suitable for a 21st century world-class city, not in the style of an Orange County suburb or other bland California “style” from the past several decades.
    2.) All parking must be subterranean/below grade. No street level parking should be tolerated. Locked laundry facilities and storage lockers should also be made available to every unit in the development below grade.
    3.) The insulation used between units should allow for residents to live next door to people who get into screaming matches, or like to watch loud movies at 3:00 a.m., without impacting the quality of life of their neighbors. This is done in Europe. Likewise for well-insulated windows. DO IT HERE!
    4.) Provide ample roof-top greenspace and open-space for residents.
    5.) Do not gate off the ground-level open space to the surrounding community.
    6.) Provide ample bicycle parking, both near entrances for brief visits, and secured in-building storage for residents.
    7.) Intall CCTV throughout the complex, and work with SFPD on best practices.
    8.) Pay to have the utility wires around your property undergrounded, then install conduits between the public source and the building units with sufficient capacity to allow for easy upgrades of telecommunications, electricity, etc., in the future.
    Thanks and good luck!

  5. Posted by emanon

    “must be met before I approve”
    Are you the new SF planning Czar?

  6. Posted by Sam

    @Reynolds
    As to the first 2, did you happen to glance at the architect? :p

  7. Posted by Joel

    The PPA recommended creating a wider east-west mew between the school and the project, instead of the 15′ separation that was proposed.
    The PPA notes: “In general, there appear to be many exceptions sought for –rear yard, exposure, frontage, horizontal mass, and mid-block alley — that are not offset by exceptional qualities elsewhere.” I sense this project will probably get downscaled a fair bit in order to accommodate more open space.
    What exactly is the “roof deck” going to be on top of?

  8. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    I’m a close neighbor of this development so I actually could have a say if I wanted to. And I don’t give a hoot, to put it nicely, about any of Reynolds’ so-called approval conditions. Well, maybe #1 but I doubt we have the same definition of style or good taste.
    I’m just happy that the eyesore that is this block will finally be developed and I don’t have an axe to grind with David Baker like so many of the grumps on this site. If I have any conditions it is that all of these 291 units be sold as market-rate condos. Potrero Hill’s north slope is a nice, relatively safe neighborhood, but it’s surrounded by high-crime areas and we are frequently reminded of that fact. Nuff said.

  9. Posted by Joel

    And, coincidentally, the architects designed the project right across 18th St. from this one.

  10. Posted by phill

    @joel, these are not condos, they’re rentals. And I doubt the ground floor primarily dedicated to parking will do much to deter crime…

  11. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    @phill, where did you get the information that this is a rental complex?

  12. Posted by se

    @form, the “leasing office” on Mariposa is a bit of clue.

  13. Posted by Saint Frank

    This is now up to 320 units. Even as a pro-density guy (for those who enjoy the pastime of pigeon-holing the commentators on this site) I think this is completely out of whack with the neighborhood. I expect the neighbors to put up a big fight to have this scaled back.

  14. Posted by Mark

    Comparing this proposed development (now at 320 units) and less than 16% open space with the other neighborhood complexes (18th + Arkansas: Victoria Mews: Wholefoods etc) you’ll have to agree 1601 Mariposa is grossly out of scale and tenor of the neighborhood and I definitely oppose this size and scale – especially providing only 235 car spots with potentially 700 plus residents – immediately swelling the entire population of Potrero Hill by 5% in one rental apartment jungle without providing one thing for the neighborhood or community. Say goodbye to your parking spot folks! Say goodbye to lots of things that drew you to Potrero Hill in the first place

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      “Say goodbye to your parking spot folks!”

      How would this development impact the parking at surrounding properties? I can see how it would put more pressure on street parking but no individuals own those spots.

  15. Posted by Christoph

    Scale is critical…like the 8 ideas draft ideas to negotiate with above (keeping the height at 40 feet). Would add a sizable donation from the builder to the upgrade of park accross the street and to the schools on the hill. Too aften, developers are allowed to not upgrade local community services, take their sizable profits, and then leave the neighborhood to make ends meet with new residential demands and no funds to meet the needs created by the development.
    So this means more than some 20k donation for green space development on the hill…much more
    And I suspect that the number of units for this project are going up so they can be shaved off in future “good will negotiations” with the neighbors.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      The tax revenue from this new development will fund services and amenities.

      • Posted by blabla

        Not so simple… The impact fees from new development are relatively small and out of whack with the actual impact of adding large numbers of new residents to Potrero Hill. There is no guarantee that the impact fees from this project will go directly to things like improvements to Jackson Park. The ENCAC would make that decision. Currently they are directing much of the impact fee funding towards SOMA. Property taxes go to the general fund and from what we’ve seen, agencies such as SFMTA are incapable of improving transit options in the SE part of the city. In fact, they are rerouting the 22 Fillmore away from Potrero Hill to better serve Mission Bay. Schools? Forget about it.

  16. Posted by Joel

    I believe (according to the PPA) the developer actually proposed to upgrade Jackson Playground, but Planning suggested funding a new “Daggett Park” a couple blocks north instead. It’s probably just as well, since the Jackson Plgd. expansion plans suggest converting adjacent parking to parallel, and that would only draw the ire of residents.

  17. Posted by james

    thanks…..

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles