As we first reported earlier this year and has been newly rendered below:

The plans for a 27-story tower to rise up to 250 feet in height at the intersection of Otis, South Van Ness Avenue and 12th Street are being refined and the environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project, which includes a 10-story podium across the site, is about to be prepared.

The proposed Hub District development now includes a total of 423 apartments (42 studios, 261 one-bedrooms, 111 twos and 9 threes) over 16,600 square feet of replacement space for the existing City Ballet School on the 30 Otis Street site which is slated to be razed; 5,600 square feet of ground floor retail space which would divided in three; and a garage for 74 cars and 361 bikes.

And as we first reported back in 2016, the proposed development includes a new Hub District plaza on the corner and re-working of 12th Street.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed tower, which has identified a number of “significant impacts associated with historic architectural resources, transportation impacts during construction, and cumulative wind conditions that are peculiar to the project site and that were not identified in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Market and Octavia Area Plan (Market and Octavia PEIR),” is now available for review.

And a public hearing to receive comments on the draft report has been scheduled for July 19.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Bobby Mucho

    Why (so many) balconies? You lose square footage, the weather is not complimentary, and there are plenty of parks & outdoor spaces to spend your time if you want fresh air. Mediocre.

    • Posted by BTinSF

      Those “fins” don’t actually appear to be balconies. My guess is they are design features to mitigate wind effects.

    • Posted by PeterGrrr

      Where’d this myth come from that San Francisco has lousy weather for balconies?

      I love being able to step outside from my unit to enjoy a coffee, check the weather or watch Karl put on his afternoon display. No I’m not going to lay outside sunning in a swimsuit every day, but it’s still great weather for just about anything else.

      • Posted by spencer

        i live in the richmond and use my roofdeck almost every single day. we ahve the best weather of any city in the country imho

      • Posted by SFRealist

        Also the plants on my balcony, which attract the occasional hummingbird.

    • Posted by Sculpy

      Can’t agree with much there. The loss of square footage, of course. It’s not currently a popular selling point, I get that. Otherwise, um, I would like to please have fresh air in the place that I live. And I get that from my two balconies. The breeze is wonderful, and the weather at 300 feet is just fine.

      I look across at the monstrosity of a Darth Vader plinth called Nema, with windows that barely crack open, and I pity them. I have had hawks perch on my railing. I have hummingbirds at a feeder all year. It’s nicer than you would think. (You can all probably guess where I live now.)

      • Posted by Cody

        Yes, the Fox Plaza! I see feathers of late falling past my window when the hawk makes a kill. It appears that it may have a nest on the roof.

    • Posted by Ty

      If sf has bad weather you live under a rock

  2. Posted by JWS

    For once I wish we would issue an Environmental Impact Report on NOT building a particular structure. How many extra commuters into the city reliant on cars that would otherwise bike, walk, or take transit? How many rent-controlled units would this free up as people move to these newer units? We always talk about the impact of building but never about the impact on our city if we DON’T build.

    • Posted by JWS

      To clarify my first question, I’m saying that if we DON’T build how many extra people will drive in to jobs they already have vs. if we build and they can use transit or bikes or walk to work.

      • Posted by Robin

        I totally agree with you. The fact is, if you don’t build more housing where people want to work/shop/play then they will end up in some remote area and need to commute/drive to work/shop/play. The impact to me seems greater if you don’t build. The problem is that this kind of logic is hard for people to get their heads around…

    • Posted by Panhandle Pro

      Love it. Useful in work/life in general: what happens if we *don’t* do this?

      • Posted by Miraloma Man

        This “No” approach is already embedded in many EIRs: the “No Project” Alternative.

  3. Posted by Panhandle Pro

    Look at this satellite photo, and then tell me that SF is out of room. SF still has tons of parking lots, and a tremendous number of unimportant, single story commercial/industrial buildings that can (and will!) be demolished for 6-25 story buildings.

    • Posted by Oaklandlover

      Panhandle pro…. that is what I am saying too! To say SF is built out is utterly ridiculous! It’s obvious.

      • Posted by Pablito

        Looks like the neighborhood has an F.A.R of 1. ‘Downtown’ Pleasanton is more dense.

        Site is going from an F.A.R of to 2 to 27? Says something about Prop 13, SF development fees, and crazy economics we have gotten ourselves into to require an F.A.R. of 27 to make be sense to redevelop it.

    • Posted by Frisco

      The photo above is already obsolete: the Goodwill building (bottom right) has been demolished for a new tower.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles