December 5, 2012
Portola Development Along San Bruno Avenue Slated For Approval
As we first reported with respect to the vacant Portola parcel at 2895 San Bruno Avenue earlier this year:
The site of a former gas station that was demolished in 2009 and has sat vacant, unpaved and fenced in by a chain-link fence since, the 11,250 square foot lot on the northeast corner of San Bruno Avenue and Woolsey Street in Portola will be subdivided into five lots as proposed. And upon each of the lots, a new 4-story mixed-use building would rise.
Each building would consist of two residential dwellings above office/retail space on the first and second floors with a rear facing garage for two vehicles and one bike.
While a plugged-in tipster delivers the renderings a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been issued by Planning, which is a good thing if you support the development.
Tomorrow, San Francisco’s Planning Commission is slated to approve the development. The site as it currently appears and with the rendered development:
∙ Fill 'Er Up In Portola Along San Bruno Avenue [SocketSite]
First Published: December 5, 2012 11:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
A little stucco
You got it bucko
Posted by: soccermom at December 5, 2012 10:37 AM
Nice. We can use more density in Portola and essentially the whole outer southwest region.
Posted by: Mas at December 5, 2012 11:39 AM
Nothing spectacular about the building but certainly better than what's there.
Posted by: lyqwyd at December 5, 2012 11:55 AM
Also, 4 barrel is opening its second shop in the portola: http://sanfrancisco.grubstreet.com/2012/09/four-barrel-coffee-portola-expansion-san-bruno.html
gentrification in all corners . . .
Posted by: observant neighbor at December 5, 2012 12:00 PM
With all the complaining about lack of housing in SF why is this proposed development only 4 stories???
I have to guess that those living in a neighborhood like Portola would go nuts if anything with higher density were to be proposed in this transit rich neighborhood.
So why don't we hear all the yammering from the likes of SPUR and all the affordable housing groups on such a modest proposal??
Posted by: NIMBY at December 5, 2012 12:42 PM
Because 4 stories is appropriate for this neighborhood and this location.
The building does not have to be "spectacular". It has to be functional, affordable and liveable, built within a strict budget.
Posted by: futurist at December 5, 2012 3:33 PM
Who said it has to be spectacular?
Posted by: lyqwyd at December 6, 2012 12:33 PM
The project has a few ‘flaws’ from the community’s perspective. As proposed, it will be five separate buildings on a yet to be subdivided lot. The Below Market Rate unit question has not been answered. The rear parking access would require an easement across property lines if the lot is subdivided. The second floors are designated as non-residential office units (10 total), but are conveniently designed in a manner that could lend to post inspection residential conversions. The corridor cannot support the addition of 5 new storefronts AND 10 ‘office’ units. Not surprisingly, height is an issue given that there are no other 4 floor buildings along the corridor. Arguably, these ‘flaws’ are advantageous to the developer because they have a right to a profit. The project developer requested a continuance to continue a dialogue with the community…
Posted by: JOE Leland at December 8, 2012 12:39 PM
I live in the community, and 5 new storefronts at the base of 4-story buildings don't sound like flaws to me.
Posted by: Columbia at December 11, 2012 11:03 AM
The use of the term ‘flaws’ in this context was meant to be subjective. New storefronts along a commercial corridor are great. Potential new businesses. Vacant storefronts along a commercial corridor not so great. Because the project is actually five separate buildings not one, the five storefronts are smallish which limits the types of businesses. Would three bigger storefronts be better? Maybe, maybe not. One would really need to look beyond this one building, at how other storefronts along San Bruno Ave are being used, to get a feel for what could work. Thoughts on the 10 second floor ‘office’ spaces?
Posted by: JOE Leland at December 11, 2012 11:39 AM