645%20Texas%20Site.jpg

Trumark Homes is testing the development waters in San Francisco having quietly proposed to demolish the two twenty-two foot buildings at 645 Texas Street on the south side of Potrero Hill in order to construct a 40-foot-tall building with 101 residential units which would front Mississippi and 22nd Streets as well.

In terms of unit mix, at least 40 percent of the 101 units would need to have two or more bedrooms, or at least 30 percent with three or more bedrooms, per San Francisco’s code.

While Trumark’s virgin proposal includes a garage with 101 parking spaces, per the site’s Mixed Use Residential zoning, only one off-street parking space is permitted for every two-bedroom over 1,000 square feet plus one off-street space for every other four units (or one space for every other two units with a Large Project Authorization), for a maximum limit of 39 to 59 parking spaces for the building as designed.

As variances or modifications from the maximum limits are not permitted, the Planning Department “strongly encourages [Trumark] to minimize the number of off-street parking spaces because of the site’s proximity to public transportation, and in conformance with the General Plan and the recently enacted Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan.”

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by soccermom

    This is too tall.
    This is not tall enough.
    There should be more parking.
    There should be less parking.
    I live here and I don’t like it.
    I live here and I do like it.
    My signficant other loves nearby Pawsitive Tails.
    (Too soon?)
    [Editor’s Note: That's right, how dare people have opinions and share their thoughts on how the city, a neighborhood, or a design is developing, the nerve!]

  2. Posted by anon

    @soccermom – I’ll grab the lines of yours that are appropriate for this proposal:
    This is not tall enough.
    There should be less parking.
    My signficant other loves nearby Pawsitive Tails.
    Seriously though, waaaaay too short and an absurd amount of parking. Double the units and halve the parking and it would be decent.

  3. Posted by futurist

    Keep the parking as proposed. Keep the height as proposed.
    For those of you who don’t fully understand the Planning Code, there are current height limits in place that ARE valid and DO relate to existing context.

  4. Posted by anon

    For those of you who don’t fully understand the Planning Code, there are current height limits in place that ARE valid and DO relate to existing context.
    Um, that’s why they’re always changing with new plans? For example, are the height limits that were in place in 2008 for the Octavia-Market are valid and relating to the existing context? Or are the height limits that are in place today valid and relating to existing context?
    40′ is not a valid height LIMIT for anywhere in SF, sorry. It’s a valid height that someone can choose to build, sure. But not as a limit. This is a freaking city – I can see 65′ for some residential-only neighborhoods, but 40′ is absurd anywhere.

  5. Posted by frog

    Since I want everyone to be mad at me – I think that area needs taller buildings and more parking.
    More importantly, anyone who thinks there’s good transit in the Dog Patch area is smoking crack. The T comes randomly and it stops running at 12:20am.

  6. Posted by Mark Ballew

    Density makes a lot of sense in this area because of the proximity to CalTrain, as well as the 22, 48, 91, and T. Muni service in general is poor but new developments increase the city’s parcel tax revenue and include one-time fees that go toward improving and expanding city service such as Muni.
    Parking is fine, needs bike storage and car share, but it is too short.

  7. Posted by spencer

    building too short. not enough parking. for 101 units, you can assume that 75% of the 1 bdroom owners will have cars, 90% of the 2dbr owners will have 1 car and maybe some with 2 cars, and 100% of the 3bdroom owners will have 1 car with more than half having 2 cars. If they don’t build parking, then the street will just be overrun with parking and congestion.
    I think the 102 original parking spaces will be needed, at a minimum

  8. Posted by Greg Arroyo

    - This is WAY TOO TALL.
    – There should be NO street parking available to this building.
    – I live here and I DON’T LIKE IT.
    The people who have invested in the Sierra Heights building will be hugely affected by this. A 40 foot tall building will kill the view for many units. THIS IS A VERY BIG DEAL!
    I want to know how I can put a stop to this. If anyone can direct me to the right place or provide me with information on how to stop this, I would really appreciate it.
    If they want to occupy the current buildings or even rebuild them no higher than the current buildings, that is fine. But making them taller is unacceptable.
    Also, there is already a shortage on parking in this area. We don’t need upwards of 70 permitted parking spots and all the non-permitted parking that will happen.
    Either don’t build this, or reduce the height and therefore the number of units to help reduce the parking needs and most importantly not bite into the property value of the current residents.
    Also just don’t offer parking permits at all. The city refused to give them to the residents at Sierra Heights which has been there since 2006. Don’t give them to the new building.

  9. Posted by anon

    You sound very selfish and entitled, Greg.
    Views are not protected.

  10. Posted by Anne S

    Views are not protected but we can express an opinion. May have no basis to stop anything that meets the code.

  11. Posted by Fishchum

    Greg, you’re either a very good troll one of the most selfish and narrow-minded NIMBY I ever met.
    Fun fact: Sierra Heights is built on a former quarry where a scene from “Dirty Harry” was filmed.
    Damn, that was a great flick.

  12. Posted by Potrero Resident

    I think this development is great for the overall nabe. Hopefully if they build it, the muni will come b/c the muni is certainly not there right now. Given the major parking issues, I think the available spaces are way too little. I understand that’s part of the general plan but it does not make much sense.
    Re blocking views, if this were to affect the views of my home, I would have problems with that. You have to look out for numero uno. I know this block very well and people who bought in the Sierra Heights development were probably sold on the views and definitely not on the public housing up the street. They took the risk of an uncertain block and as a result, their conerns should at least be heard.
    However in the end, I think this development should continue as there is plenty of room to build in my nabe.

  13. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    anon wrote:

    40′ is not a valid height LIMIT for anywhere in SF, sorry. It’s a valid height that someone can choose to build, sure. But not as a limit. This is a freaking city … I can see 65′ for some residential-only neighborhoods, but 40′ is absurd anywhere

    Human-scale, pedestrian friendly buildings are one of the things that makes S.F. special and not just a manhattan wannabe.
    what futurist wrote above is entirely correct and applies in the circumstances you mention as well. You might not like it, perhaps because it’s not manhattan-like, but there are all kinds of areas in The City with a height limit of 40 feet and many new developments are building to, yes, that height LIMIT.
    One example is the new mixed-use building to be built at 2895 San Bruno Avenue going through the approval process at the planning commission. That project is “five residential/mixed use buildings containing a total of ten dwelling units…ground-floor retail spaces, and second floor business or professional service uses” (i.e., not “residential-only”) at 40′ high.

  14. Posted by anon

    Human-scale, pedestrian friendly buildings are one of the things that makes S.F. special and not just a manhattan wannabe.
    Human-scale is exactly what I’d like – carpet the whole city in 65-80′ buildings, a la Paris or Barcelona. If we did that, we wouldn’t need condo towers downtown (I don’t care much for tall buildings, but we have to make up for the fact that much of the city is limited to too short 40′ levels, as you mention).

  15. Posted by Richard

    It is insane to build residential units in this neighborhood without at least one for one off street parking. Cars are not going away anytime soon but space on our streets is rapidly disappearing. The one for one concept adds value to the project and more importantly, the neighborhood.

  16. Posted by Jimbo

    For the good of the greater city, please make this taller and please have at least 100 parking spots. Public transport sucks here and there is a lack of street parking. Less parking = more congestion

  17. Posted by Potrero Resident

    IMO, 40 feet appears to be high enough. What I’m wondering is how they are going to fit 101 units on the piece of land. If you look at the development to the left (Sierra Heights) that dev consists of ~66 units and portions of the dev go as high as 8 stories I believe.
    Seems like a 50ish unit development would be better suited. Also, since the land is on a slanted hill, is it 40 feet from the top of the hill or bottom? If it’s from the top of the hill going straight across, we may be as high as 60 feet?

  18. Posted by futurist

    For someone to say that a 40′ height limit is NOT valid for anywhere in SF is just pure hyperbole and hysterical rhetoric.
    40′ is appropriate in most residential areas with a large number of single family homes. Can you imagine the lot next to your SFD being allowed to build to 65′ when all other properties are 1-3 story homes at most 35-40′ high?
    Citywide zoning heights very widely and should: reflecting existing context and building type. There is a place for great high rise residential, but it most certainly is not in our established single family neighborhoods.

  19. Posted by anon

    ^Yes, I can imagine that quite well, as most neighborhoods already have this. For example, I’ve got a friend that lives on 17th Ave in the Richmond in a SFH (whole street is mostly SFHs), but next door is an 8 story building (both his house and the 8 story apartment building were built in the 30s). It works quite well, and the world hasn’t ended for the street.
    I clearly wasn’t talking about highrises next to SFHs, but 65′-80′ everywhere works great (see most neighborhoods in SF where you can find a mix – even in the Sunset…)

  20. Posted by futurist

    And our urban planners have learned much since the 1930’s:
    That height limits are extremely important and must carefully respect the existing context and majority of adjacent housing.
    Today, an 8 story building would not work well next to a single family home, nor would it be allowed. I’m talking about single family residential neighborhoods such as Noe, Bernal, Potrero, etc.
    And I’m glad for that.

  21. Posted by anon

    Today, an 8 story building would not work well next to a single family home, nor would it be allowed. I’m talking about single family residential neighborhoods such as Noe, Bernal, Potrero, etc.
    Um, the buildings that I’m talking about still exist, and the SFHs on the street still sell for $1.1 million and up, with no one on the street going crazy having an 8 story neighbor How do they not work? You can’t just say that something doesn’t work when there are obvious real world examples all over the city definitively proving otherwise.
    If you want a new example – a new 8 story building at Geary and Arguello was completed a couple years ago, and directly touches numerous SFHs to the south. These houses still “work” just fine.
    Noe, Bernal, and Potrero may be mostly SFH, but there are plenty of buildings throughout each that are not (especially Potrero). I’m confused at why the areas of those neighborhoods that have non-SFHs, like I dunno, directly across the street from this particular site, have somehow continued to “work”.

  22. Posted by futurist

    Well, not to drag out this discussion but the building anon mentioned is actually ON Geary Blvd. and in a higher zoning envelope than just around the corner on Arguello. And Yes, the Geary location is appropriate for that height.
    But around the corner, the scale drops down to an appropriate height that reflects the single family homes. Yes, varying height limits can exist “near” each other, often due to the actual street they are located on. But for a large part of our city, the SFD height limit of 40′ works very well.

  23. Posted by Anon

    The building on Geary absolutely had to have a spot zoning increase from 40′, futurist. I have no idea why you think otherwise? I attended the meeting where the height increase was approved.

  24. Posted by futurist

    And yes, the zoning height WAS increased in that particular location for a very good reason.
    It is appropriate ALONG Geary Blvd. It would not have been appropriate mixed in directly on Arguello.
    Height limits can and sometimes do change along specific corridors, especially high traffic locations and commercial/mixed residential zones. Makes good sense. But certainly along Texas St. on Potrero Hill, there are no existing higher buildings nor higher traffic commercial zones to warrant a height increase.

  25. Posted by anon

    So you agree that an arbitrary citywide 40′ height limit that can be spot-zoned higher is just as nonsensical as a citywide 80′ height limit that can be spot-zoned lower. We just seem to disagree on when spot zoning should be used for the lower limit (certainly not in this location for me – 40′ is absolutely mind-boggling in this location).

  26. Posted by futurist

    No.
    And it’s not arbitrary.
    Never is.
    End of story.

  27. Posted by anon

    40′ is extremely arbitrary.
    End of story.

  28. Posted by spencer

    there are plenty of examples of 6-8 story buildings next to single family homes. Some in Pac hts, marina, inner richmond that I can think of. Would i want one built next to my SFH? No. But does it work ? YES and some look great as a contrast.

Add a Comment

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