In a move which shouldn’t catch any plugged-in readers by surprise, plans for 7-story development to rise upon the 1458 San Bruno Avenue parcel, adjacent to Potrero del Sol Park and the Meadows Livingstone School, on the southeastern edge of the Mission, have been drafted.

As envisioned, the three industrial buildings on the site, tenants of which currently include the Tiny Telephone recording studio and Parachute Creative, would be razed to make way for the new development.

And while the site is currently only zoned for development up to 40 feet in height, the project team is planning to claim a State Density Bonus in order to build up to 70 feet in height and yield 205 units of housing (a mix of 122 studios and 83 two-bedrooms), with 23 of the units to be offered at below market rates (BMR) and no off-street parking for any cars.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Martin

    Always felt that locations adjacent to highways and ramps should be much higher to shield rest of city from the noise and blight. With double/triple pane glass, I’m sure we can find someone at the right price to live there.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      I think the easier, and arguably better, strategy is to build a solid wall/hallway fronting the freeway and only have apartment windows facing the other way (with a few on the sides). This is what developments like Avalon Dogpatch have done.

  2. Posted by John L.

    This land used to be part of Islais Creek. Dealing with the pollution cleanup, waterproofing, geotechnical, and seismic issues for this project should prove to be a nastier hairball than the freeway underpass nextdoor, particularly if any underground parking is involved. Then again, building anything in this town is never easy.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      The post literally says there won’t be parking. And I am willing to bet this isn’t geotechnically more difficult to build to seismic standards than any of long list of newer buildings built on landfill in the city.

      • Posted by John L.

        From a purely geotechnical standpoint I don’t doubt it’s possible. Whether the project pencils out with all the other site constraints is a different question entirely. Most of the newer buildings built on landfill are either larger and can achieve an economy of scale (Financial District) or received subsidy from the former Redevelopment Agency (Mission Bay).

    • Posted by L'UrbanistaSF

      “…and no off-street parking for any cars.”

    • Posted by Miraloma Man

      Did you mean Precita Creek? Islais Creek is farther south, south of Bernal Heights and Potrero Hill.

  3. Isn’t this the former site of the Survival Research Labs workshop? Fun Uneasy times.

  4. Posted by L'UrbanistaSF

    Residents will certainly love the “nightlife” in that park…

  5. Posted by archiwhy

    i’m all for new things, don’t get me wrong … but such a shame that tiny telephone is on the cutting block

  6. Posted by developer

    good luck casting a shadow on Potrero del Sol park with code complaint BMR

  7. Posted by Moving On and up

    Besides Tiny Telephone, Meadows Livingston School and Parachute Creative- this is the home of Subterranean Records, and a number of local artists. I believe there are a few residents also currently residing there. Sad to see them all displaced.

    • Posted by Miraloma Man

      Get with it, San Francisco is a Libertarian Paradise now. Who needs art? Or children? Or culture? We have money and that is all we need.

    • Posted by anonymous

      The proposed development does not include the building at 1499 Potrero, where Meadows Livingston School is located, as well as some artist spaces & loft living spaces. The development proposal is for the 3 buildings that have the address of 1458 San Bruno, which includes Tiny Telephone & Subterranean Records.

  8. Posted by potrero pal

    Build it and it will fall or sink. Liquefaction hazard area.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      Is your solution to never build anything in a zone with any degree of liquefaction risk? Because I’ve got some bad news for you.

      • Posted by potrero pal

        The area in discussion is listed by the USGS as the highest level of danger of liquefaction (red on the map). When the freeway was built, those maps didn’t exist, but today they do to help avoid making critical mistakes. Either way, I am sure they will suss it all out and build it anyway but knowing this, it’s not a place I would buy into.

  9. Posted by potreroresident

    this project will destroy the majority of sunlight on the park, such a shame for those of us that frequently use it

    • Posted by SFRealist

      How will it destroy the majority of sunlight? (And I believe you mean “cast a shadow”)

      It’s on the southeast corner, so it will cast a shadow in the morning, and then it will not cast a shadow in the afternoon, right?

  10. Posted by ShakeyJake

    I’m all for growth, but wouldn’t it make more sense to add this land to the park? The park already includes most of the block.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles