Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 2300 Harrison topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mission neighbors and advocates push back on 2300 Harrison proposal as Commission continues item
Summary
The Commission heard competing arguments over a mixed-use proposal at 2300 Harrison involving a density‑bonus housing component paired with office space; opponents warned the plan would erode PDR jobs and asked the Commission to reject waivers or secure stronger community benefits. The item was continued to Oct. 10 for further work.
The planning commission on Aug. 22 heard a contentious debate over a mixed‑use, density‑bonus project at 2300 Harrison Street that pairs housing with a large office allocation and asks for density bonus incentives and waivers for rear yard, ground‑floor height and narrow‑street height limits.
Planning staff said the project would demolish a surface parking lot and add a six‑story vertical addition with 24 dwellings, approximately 27,000 square feet of new office space and limited retail and arts space. The sponsor is requesting three incentives and three waivers under state density‑bonus law because the project proposes at least 15% of units at 50% AMI.
"Using the density bonus to build tech office space in an affordable‑housing crisis is the real obfuscation," Larissa Pedroncelli of United to Save the Mission told the Commission, urging denial or stronger mitigation to preserve PDR (production, distribution, repair) jobs and ground‑floor uses. Business owners on Treat Street and Mission asked the Commission to relocate the garage entrance to Harrison to avoid truck conflicts and preserve industrial operations.
Project representatives said they have negotiated a package of community benefits and that the configuration — combining office with housing — allowed the project to be financially feasible while adding some on‑site subsidized units. The applicants said certain waivers (for floor alignment and mechanical relocations) reduce costs and make retention of needed rear setbacks and site operations feasible.
Commissioners probed whether a code‑compliant housing‑only alternative could work and asked staff and the sponsor to provide detailed cost and design comparisons, unit quality information (including concerns about nested bedrooms), circulation and PDR mitigation, and the terms of any community benefits memorandum. Several commissioners said they were not ready to approve the project as presented.
On motion, the Commission continued the item to Oct. 10, asking the sponsor to return with clarified community benefit details, improved unit designs and options that would reduce impacts on PDR and truck circulation.
