Problems for Post Street Redevelopment as ProposedJanuary 21, 2020
As we first revealed last year:
Plans to raze the 4-story office building at 2233 Post Street, between Scott and Divisadero in Lower Pac Heights, are in the works.
And while the site is principally only zoned for development up to 50 feet in height, plans for a 7-story, mixed-use building to rise up to 75 feet in height upon the parcel, which includes the 29-space parking lot behind the building, along Geary Boulevard, have been drawn.
As designed by RG-Architecture, the development as envisioned would yield 21,000 square feet of replacement office space across the new building’s first two floors, with 90 new residential units above, an interior courtyard and a basement garage for 31 cars.
The project team is planning to invoke San Francisco’s local density bonus program (HOME-SF) for the additional height and a couple of Planning Code exemptions (required rear yard and open space reductions along with an exposure modification for ten of the units). And as such, 27 of the proposed units would be rented at below market rates.
San Francisco’s Planning Department has since completed their preliminary review of the plans. And based upon said review, there are two potential problems for the project as proposed.
As noted by a plugged-in reader last year, there is a historic component to the existing building, which has been formally identified for its association with modern architecture. And as noted by Planning, in order to qualify for the HOME-SF program, “a project must not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource.”
In addition, and probably more problematically, the existing use of the building for office space appears to be non-conforming use based on the Zoning District (NC-3) within which the parcel lies. And “while the existing use(s) within the existing building may be [a] legal non-conforming [use], that status would be lost should the project demolish those uses,” and general office space, as the project team appears to envision for the development, is not a conforming use for the property.
We’ll continue to keep you posted and plugged-in.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Well, it’s finally happened: an ugly – subjectively, of course – building that’s nevertheless much better looking than what it seeks to replace (‘Historical component.’ notwithstanding…unless it’s to serve as an object lesson in what to avoid)
The new building looks vastly better to me.
This is D2, right? Hopefully Supervisor Stefani will sponsor legislation to get the project over these hurdles. This project is obviously putting a better, nicer, and more useful building in the neighborhood. And 27 affordable homes are much needed in this neighborhood. This shouldn’t be blocked by technicalities.
Do you consider all rules to be ‘technicalities’ or just the ones you don’t agree with?
Obscure planning rules that obviously aren’t supported by San Franciscans who in poll after poll by large majorities want more housing in their neighborhoods? Call them whatever you want but it’s exhausting to see them getting in the way while rent climbs higher and higher and higher.
It should be taller. 27 units is a drop in the bucket. There should be more high rises in the Sunset and Richmond.
And the Historic Preservation Mafia wonders why so many people don’t take them seriously.
In related news: Problems for Another Supersized Development as Envisioned
What a tragic irony! The historic preservation rules that were originally intended to protect Victorians from being replaced with drab modernist boxes and parking lots are now being used to protect a drab modernist box in a parking lot…… and in a part of town where lots of Victorians were lost to “Urban Renewal.”
The Planning Department leadership and Historic Preservationists in SF are completely out of control and need to be replaced or removed.
This is HOUSING (one of the ONLY developments trying to move forward with a full 30% of affordable units) and I’m not sure if they’ve heard the news, but we are in a HOUSING CRISIS. A crisis caused in large part, by their own actions and bureaucracy. If they can’t reform then get rid of them and replace them with people that can address this crisis instead of just making the crisis worse with delay after delay after delay until the project no longer works; that’s what got us into this mess.
There is ZERO historical significance to that horrible little office building, the Historical Preservationist’s in this city have ZERO common sense or taste. We need more housing: get out of the way.
Comments are closed.