1050 Valencia Street Site

The building permit for the five-story Mission District development under construction at 1050 Valencia Street has officially been suspended and the public hearing to re-review the appeal of the project’s approved height has been scheduled for June 3.

The suspension was due to a Superior Court Judge’s ruling that San Francisco’s Board of Appeals “abused its discretion” and “failed to set forth the analytic route it traveled” when the Board reversed its original vote which would have limited the Mission District development to four stories in height.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by David

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

  2. Posted by pringles

    I used to live across the street from this location. It is an ideal project for the location: razing a single story fast-food structure into apartments with bicycle parking (no cars). Heavy subway is 3 blocks away and plenty of other amenities nearby. The Liberty Hill nimbys opposing this should be ashamed and feel lucky they secured their coveted Victorians when they did.

  3. Posted by inclinejj

    The bigger problem is, Every tradesmen around is over loaded with work. You lose your subs, good luck getting them back.

  4. Posted by R

    Developers should be able to sue NIMBY’s for the cost associated with project delays due to frivolous lawsuits. The fact that they can litigate a project at will with no consequences to themselves empowers them excessively.

    • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

      Well, in this case, the “NIMBYs” won. By definition, it was thus not a frivolous lawsuit. Do you agree that the developer should now have to pay the “NIMBYs” for the costs and fees of this successful lawsuit?

    • Posted by SFCitizen

      I don’t think the individuals or neighborhood associations have the deep pockets required to pay the judgment. I do wonder if neighborhood associations have some type of insurance coverage for their activities. Does anyone know if a neighborhood association has been successfully sued for their activity? Maybe something under the RICO act?

  5. Posted by moto mayhem

    why are missionites fighting against their own interest. Is the IQ level just lower on that side of town?

    • Posted by Pablo

      Lower building = totally within their own interests $$$. The most desirable $$$ neighborhoods in SF are the ones with the lowest density – Sea Cliff – Presidio, Saint Francis Wood, etc.

      For every millionaire with a great view out of Rincon Tower – there are 3-4 people now living in that buildings shadow. People need housing – but they also like sunlight.

      • Posted by Alai

        Sea Cliff – Presidio, Saint Francis Wood etc may be the most “desirable $$$” per housing unit, but I doubt they’re the most desirable per square foot of land.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        if their interest is controlling housing costs fighting against development only hurts their cause

      • Posted by Dr. House

        Sunlight is still readily available in the same place as always — outside. Conveniently humans are equipped with legs with which to walk around. Also it’s quite strange to me, all this recent complaining about shading parks, and about shading homes now? Whenever I go to a park the first thing I do is usually look for shade. UV is harmful to you; it can literally give you cancer. But whatever, if you like being in the sun go walk around to get in the sun if you really have become that Vitamin D deficient!

        • Posted by Amewsed

          Thank you Dr. House for the sense with humor and medical common sense. I wonder if the same people who complain about shading parks and homes are the ones who ignorantly fight tooth and nail over not vaccinating their kids.

          Hear that? Crazy moms! Use that excess lunacy to attend a medical seminar or class offered by a reputable hospital. Otherwise, quarantine your kid from the rest of society.

  6. Posted by Rome is Burning

    I thought once a permit was issued and the builder took economically significant steps to commence the project, the rights vested. Guess I was wrong, but this has to be nearly unprecedented. The project went through a rigorous public process, received planning commission support, sustained multiple appeals, and now some judge second guesses the whole process mid-construction. Really? Are all you construction lenders taking notice of this? Astounding.

  7. Posted by Ellen Catalina (@daimondog)

    DIdn’t this project already cut out to BMR units to make the Liberty Hill Nimbys happy?

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles