Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outlines Potrero HOPE SF redevelopment and upcoming joint EIR/EIS
Summary
Planning Department staff and Bridge Housing presented the Rebuild Potrero HOPE SF project update, describing plans to replace 606 public-housing units with a phased mixed-income development of up to 1,600 units and an upcoming joint CEQA/NEPA review slated for public release in September.
Planning Department environmental planning staff and the project sponsor outlined a major, multi‑phase redevelopment of the Potrero Terrace and Annex public‑housing sites, part of the city's HOPE SF initiative. Rachel Shett of the Planning Department said the environmental review process began with a notice of preparation in 2010 and that because the project would use federal funds it is also proceeding under the National Environmental Policy Act; a joint environmental impact report and statement is expected to be released for public review in September.
Emily Weinstein of Bridge Housing, director of the Rebuild Potrero effort, described the project goals and program. The current proposal would replace all 606 existing public‑housing units and could yield as many as 1,600 dwelling units in total, with a proposed mix of about 60 percent lower‑income or affordable units and 40 percent market units. Weinstein said the master plan includes roughly 15,000 square feet of retail, a 25,000–35,000 square‑foot community center with daycare, and nearly four acres of public open space. She said the housing would be built in phases to minimize displacement, and that the project includes community building and resident services intended to improve outcomes for existing families.
Planning staff's historic resources technical specialist summarized the historic review and said the site includes mid‑century buildings (Terrace completed in 1941; Annex in the 1950s). While some elements were identified as significant under criteria for events, persons, and architecture, staff concluded the site generally lacks sufficient integrity across the whole campus to qualify as a single, preserved historic resource. Commissioners asked about documentation of cultural resources, oral histories, and ways to incorporate interpretation into the new development; project staff said they have produced murals, video documentation and plan to continue oral history and archival efforts in partnership with neighborhood organizations.
The commission did not take action on the EIR/EIS today but asked staff to bring the draft document back during the public review period for a formal commission comment letter. The public review period and a Planning Commission hearing are part of the schedule staff described for responses to comments and EIR certification later in the year.
