Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Potrero Power Station topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Potrero Power Station update spotlights trade‑offs between preservation and housing
Summary
Developers and city staff presented a revised Potrero Power Station concept emphasizing open space, workforce development, and housing. Sponsors said preserving Station A would reduce housing yield by roughly 200 units and add office space; community groups urged preservation and robust public benefits. The session was informational — no project approval was sought.
City staff and the Potrero Power Station project sponsor presented an informational update on April 25 that reframed trade‑offs between housing, preservation and office uses for the 29‑acre waterfront redevelopment.
John Francis, senior planner, and John Lau of the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development reviewed the project schedule and public‑benefits priorities. The project sponsor, Associate Capital, described refinements to the draft design‑for‑development (D4D) and presented five alternatives that explore urban‑form, open‑space, and preservation options.
Enrique Landon of Associate Capital said the team has pursued extensive community engagement and emphasized a majority‑housing approach in earlier iterations; the original proposal contained about 2,600 housing units, roughly 1.5 million square feet of life‑science/office, and an iconic 300‑foot residential tower to pair visually with the site's 300‑foot stack. Sponsor speakers said lowering the tower to 220 feet or preserving Station A would come with trade‑offs: lowering heights could reduce yield by about 100 units, and retaining Station A could make it infeasible to place housing in that structure, further reducing housing by about 200 units and adding roughly 200,000 square feet of office.
City negotiators signaled housing is the administration’s top priority. Ken Rich of OEWD described construction‑cost and market pressures that make negotiation of public benefits more painful than in prior waterfront projects; he said the city’s direction from the mayor is “housing, housing, housing,” and that retaining Station A while preserving housing and affordability remains uncertain.
Preservation advocates told the commission they support efforts to explore adaptive reuse for Station A and other historic brick buildings on site. San Francisco Heritage and neighborhood groups urged continued design charrettes and rigorous vetting of Station A options. Local neighborhood boosters and arts stakeholders asked for guarantees on open space, parks, childcare and neighborhood‑serving retail.
Sponsor responses stressed the complexity and cost of stabilizing Station A: Associate Capital said it is largely a ruin with significant structural and water intrusion issues and that a preserved Station A would likely be a single‑use office structure, which shifts the housing/office balance. OEWD said the economics must support community benefits without large taxpayer subsidies, noting this project does not include the public financing used on some nearby waterfront projects.
No formal action was taken; staff indicated a revised D4D and another informational presentation were expected in late May or June, with certification and action targeted for later in the summer.
