376 Castro Rough Rendering

As plugged-in people know, the plans to build six stories on the northwest corner of Castro and Market are back in play:

The proposed project would involve the demolition of the existing automotive gasoline and service station…and the construction of a six-story, approximately 65-foot-tall, 43,070-square-foot, mixed-use building with 24 residential units, approximately 2,990 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and a 14-space underground parking garage with ingress and egress from Castro.

The residential use (19 two-bedroom units and 5 one-bedroom units) would be approximately 27,000 square feet in size. In addition to the proposed commercial space, the ground floor level would also contain the residential lobby, with both entrances from Castro Street.

The proposed project would reduce the amount of curb-cuts along the project site from four driveways, two along both Castro and Market Streets, to one driveway on Castro Street. Existing street trees along Market Street would be retained and new street trees, approximately four, would be added along Castro Street. The four palm trees on the adjacent property to the north along the retaining wall would be retained.

The project would require excavation to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface for the below grade parking garage. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last 15 months, starting in approximately spring of 2012.

Objectors and obstructers have until December 2 to challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project as proposed. And once again, as the corner currently appears:

376 Castro

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by wc1

    Excellent – hopefully will happen.

  2. Posted by Mike Sullivan

    This is a great spot for more density. Just hope that the design + materials are high quality – LOTS of people are going to be looking at whatever they build on this busy corner.

  3. Posted by lol

    I suspect this is a conspiracy from Chevron, Exxon and 76 to eliminate a gas provider that is reliably among the top of GasBuddy.com’s cheapest SF list. For instance their today’s regular is 30 cents cheaper than the competing 76 one block down.
    http://www.sanfrangasprices.com/San%20Francisco/index.aspx
    I would say it should have historical landmark status!

  4. Posted by Invented

    Frankly it’s becoming very inconvenient to fill up my SUV in this city. The convenience of that station if let’s say I’m driving south, will be missed. When I’d drive to grab lets say, a quart of milk or to return a book to the library — a $75 fill-up was always on the errand list as well. Now it looks like I’ll have to make some awkward left turns to another gasoline station or inconveniently drive around the block to the station across the intersection. Sheesh.

  5. Posted by lol

    ^^^ very good one. I put more miles on my commuter bike than my car, fwiw. But I love being able to go to the little guy for gas instead of the monopoly politician-buying types. Then again I have no illusion to where my gas is coming from or even to what happens to it after it leaves my exhaust pipe…

  6. Posted by Mark Ballew

    I will be really surprised if the amount of parking at this location isn’t contested. This location is right next to a subway entrance and subway elevator!

  7. Posted by Jackson

    The current proposal is for 14 parking spaces for 24 residences.
    Not everyone is able to live by riding a bicycle, or commuting on MUNI.
    If the market wants cheaper priced units without parking, developers will build such.
    Why try to force your opinion of lifestyle on others?

  8. Posted by derrysf

    I will expect a flurry of random objections from the buildings on the hill behind in the hopes of saving what views they might have.

  9. Posted by brid

    I agree with derrysf – the residents in the old apartment (condo?) building off States Street immediately behind are going to be noisy objectors.
    I support this development in any case. Exactly right for this location.

  10. Posted by Dubocian

    I wish the design were more inspired, but overall it should be a good project

  11. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “If the market wants cheaper priced units without parking, developers will build such.
    Why try to force your opinion of lifestyle on others?”

    Ha ha, its the old “This is Merica, land of the free. Let people have what they want. The invisible hand of the market will keep everything in check” argument.
    In that case can I have a bazooka and 300 doses of morphine? I’d never be so careless but someone else exercising that liberty might fire a few rounds into the air during an opiate fueled delirium. The irony is that that act of stupidity would cause less harm than allowing a two to one parking ratio in a dense city.

  12. Posted by BT

    I just have one question: When every gas station in San Francisco has been “redeveloped”, where will San Franciscans get gas?
    Perhaps it’s time for clever architects to start figuring out how to efficiently and SAFELY incorporate gas stations into denser development projects. Sure, put up your 8, 9, 10 story condo but keep the gas station just like in some other places we’ve kept the supermarket.

  13. Posted by @BT

    I’m sure people would be banging down the doors to live above 10,000 gallon explosive underground storage tanks.

  14. Posted by lol

    Time to go electric I guess…

  15. Posted by R

    “I just have one question: When every gas station in San Francisco has been “redeveloped”, where will San Franciscans get gas?”
    Just do what many many other cities do.. Put them in mixed use developments.. Like Tokyo in link..

  16. Posted by Jackson

    “In that case can I have a bazooka and 300 doses of morphine? I’d never be so careless but someone else exercising that liberty might fire a few rounds into the air during an opiate fueled delirium.”
    Hyberbole much?

  17. Posted by Jackson

    edit: typo
    Hyperbole.
    Others seems to take their opinions so seriously on this board.

  18. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Um yeah. That was obvious exaggeration. Did you read the sentence that came after? I think we’ve lost touch with how dangerous the automobile based transport system has become.
    And on another topic, underground storage of gasoline is actually quite safe since it is out of contact with the oxygen required to burn. It isn’t until the gas is pumped to the surface and placed into vehicles that it becomes dangerous.

  19. Posted by Jackson

    Um yeah. That was obvious exaggeration. Did you read the sentence that came after?
    Exactly!
    Just like you ignored previously written:“Not everyone is able to live by riding a bicycle, or commuting on MUNI.”

  20. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Jackson – Perhaps someone who feels they require a car would make sure they moved into a unit that had parking? Or one of the 98%+ homes in the bay area that have parking?
    Just because some people feel the need to have a car isn’t a very good reason to require all housing to be bundled with parking.
    Why try to force your opinion of lifestyle on others?

  21. Posted by anon

    You’re correct – not everyone is able to live by riding a bike or commuting on Muni.
    Is there some reason to believe that everyone will be living in this building?
    If not, won’t people who need to own a parking spot live somewhere that, you know, has parking? Maybe I’m missing something…

  22. Posted by MCM

    How does someone get permission to build six stories in a neighborhood of three story buildings?
    Six stories is way too high for that area. I imagine those who have windows that face the walls of the development will be furious to go into the dark. The entrances to that motel-like building to the north are the only windows for those apartments.
    Anyone who argues that high density is the way to go hasn’t considered how much energy it takes to run a dense place like NYC. It’s not really a way to become more energy efficient. Besides, density and forced public transportation, isn’t the answer. Having watched several elderly and handicapped people slowly edge themselves around Manhattan, the cruel side of high density planning becomes obvious.
    Density, high or low, backyards or not, is part of the character of a neighborhood, of a city. If every neighborhood looks the same, what you’ve made is a block of buildings like every other block of buildings, not a neighborhood.

  23. Posted by anon

    ^Um, what? Your post is nonsensical.
    The reason that they are allowed to build six stories is that ANYONE would be allowed to build six stories here. It was part of the Market-Octavia zoning plan that spent a full decade working with the neighborhood to determine what is appropriate.
    It’s not even worth responding to your nonsense about density being “high energy use” LOL.

  24. Posted by Agent X

    Who would want to live on that corner? Imagine the noise! Vehicles, buses, trucks on top of nightly bar spill over and music and then add on every festival or holiday that everyone associates with a party in the Castro..this place will be as peaceful as the wildest frat house on campus! 14 PARKING SPACES!! Thats more than the amount of street parking on Castro between Market and 18th!! Thats more than the Walgreens parking lot and the Castro Theater parking lot!! Unbelievable!

  25. Posted by Kurt Brown

    MCM says: “Anyone who argues that high density is the way to go hasn’t considered how much energy it takes to run a dense place like NYC. It’s not really a way to become more energy efficient.”
    And thus MCM shows that when it comes to knowledge of energy efficiency, they are talking complete and utter nonsense. I suggest spending some time studying elementary energy usage statistics on NYC versus low density areas. This might help when navigating the apparently alien world of facts.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles