As we first revealed back in 2019, plans for a seven-story infill building to rise up to 74 feet and six inches in height upon the shuttered Club Tapatio site at 4742 Mission Street were in the works and Planning was encouraging the project team to add another floor to the Excelsior District development as envisioned.

But as we outlined at the time, buildings with occupied floors that are 75 feet or higher are required to meet more stringent, and costly, high-rise building code requirements.

And with that in mind, while an eighth floor has been added to the building, and the density of the proposed development has been increased to yield 46 dwelling units, versus 36 as originally proposed, the height of the proposed building remains at 74-feet and six inches, as newly rendered below.

A basement garage for 7 cars and 46 bikes would be accessed by way of an easement to Leo Street.

And as the project “will maximize the use of two underutlized lots” and “increase the City’s housing stock by providing a total of 46 new dwelling units, twelve of which will be designated as on-site affordable dwelling units,” San Francisco’s Planning Department is now recommending that the project be approved next week.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

26 thoughts on “High-ish Rise in the Excelsior Slated for Approval”
      1. We’d be willing to bet that soccermom’s comment was commentary on the likelihood of the entitling team actually breaking ground (versus trying to flip the approved plans and site).

        1. Yes. This is a nice picture but the cost of actually building this project and paying all of the impact fees is astronomically higher than the cost of planning approvals. I would be happy to see it built, but that’s not a great site or a great neighborhood. Nothing will happen here for a long time, is my guess.

          1. “but that’s not a great site or a great neighborhood” – I buy burritos from Taqueria Guadalajara all the time. Never had a problem with the neighborhood.

          2. I have to disagree. The Excelsior is a great neighborhood. It has a suburban feel even though it’s in the City so it doesn’t get the city riff-raff. It has a commercial corridor on mission with lots of potential. It’s centrally located on the fog and sun line and easy access to both downtown and the peninsula. Not sure why development has been slow to accept the Excelsior.

          3. The Excelsior may be a pleasant neighborhood but I don’t think it’s where “luxury” buyers are looking.

      2. Wake me if it actually completes with 12 units BMR.

        I’ll bet the developers just add to some nebulous fund to avoid it, as they usually do

          1. Developers should be doing both for the pleasure of conducting business in this fair burgh.

            Substantial donations to city funds and minimum BMR requirements.

            This one or the other is developer mollycoddling

    1. Who is the owner? No info on the development team and what is occuring currently at the site? We need the retail ground floor areas active and the concern is what happened to building built towards Geneva that lacked a good color scheme and had poor implemented ground floor retail component…

      SIA consulting was connected to the supervisor and there is already a bigger building having problems getting completed over near Onondaga…

  1. Any NIMBY comments here are just so sad.
    MORE HOUSING NOW! But, hey, no, not like that and definitely not right there!

      1. Not like this…. ask Derick Almena and Max Harris.

        All garages or warehouses that are found to operate illegal ‘after-hour’ spots in San Francisco should be eligible for City eminent domain sites for affordable housing projects.

        1. Illegal? It was a completely legit nightclub. Stop twisting to fit your narrative.

          This was no Ghost Ship scenario.

  2. FYI – The 75′ demark between low rise and high rise code requirements is based on the floor of the highest occupied level.

  3. Somewhere in the interwebs you may find a story about this parcel and it owners. From my recollection, they intend to “give back” and desired to provide a higher % of BMRs. I think owner(s) are affiliated with Sia Consulting. The interesting part to me is the easement over the parcel on Leo Street. Not sure if that is something they acquired recently or ran with the land long ago.

  4. SF could really use a Baron Haussmann. Not just to bulldozer the NIMBYs, but also to enforce some sort of aesthetic standard. This is such a boring design. Still hope it gets built.

    1. Bulldozing the nimbys means you throw out the Victorians the designed buildings with any character and are left with an array of platenbau from the DDR… best to allow nimbys to object when buildings are obviously not in alignment or community issues are not being addressed or you should just pave it all and eliminate everyone…

  5. Too many boring designs = reason to object to another one if no community input is included and the designs adjusted.

  6. We also have enough cheapening of buildings and less sincere follow through on original renderings. Many buildings lessen the quality during the build out and therefore we get substandard designs and materials. And a few too many designers stick to the basic palette not willing to push the boundaries a bit more with the client on the budgets.

Leave a Reply

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