CFAH

1298 Valencia Street Site 2015

The infamous Mission District bus stop at which protesters started blocking tech buses back in 2013, protesting the gentrification of the neighborhood, is cater-corner to the 76 Station gas station on the northwest corner of Valencia and 24th Streets pictured above.

Zoned for development up to 55 feet in height, plans to raze the station and build a six-story building designed by Ian Birchall and Associates, with 35 condos (a studio, 20 one-bedrooms and 14 two-bedrooms) atop 3,800 square feet of retail space and an underground garage for nine (9) cars have been working their way through Planning, as we first reported last year.

1298 Valencia Street Rendering

The proposed 1298 Valencia Street development includes the construction of a new sidewalk along the Poplar Street frontage and the planting of eight new trees (three along on 24th and five on Valencia).

And last week, the project was formally granted an Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan based exemption from having to complete a detailed Environmental Review.

The project will still require the Planning Commission’s blessing and a plan for cleaning up the site will need to be approved and executed.  And of course, there’s still the potential for a near-term market-rate development moratorium which could affect the project’s timeline.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Bob

    Except that the plan for the moratorium is to devote all of the affordable housing money in San Francisco to the mission. That’s going to be hard to swallow citywide. When does socket site plan on reporting on that?

    • Posted by Elitist Pig

      Yeah, because that’s going to pass…

  2. Posted by Shotwellian

    Can’t wait for this building to happen. The gas station there creates huge hazards for pedestrians, with cars entering and exiting at ill-defined driveways.

  3. Posted by escapee

    Gee….ya think 9 parking spaces is enough?

  4. Posted by sfbrit

    With just nine parking spaces for 35 units it’s a good job there’s lots of street parking around there.

  5. Posted by jamesjr

    When will planning figure out that not having adequate parking in these buildings only creates more parking problems on our streets.

    • Posted by PBT

      when will people figure out that owning a car and driving everywhere is not necessary in compact urban environments?? oh wait, young people are… just have to wait for stubbornly closed minded people to get a clue.

      • Posted by Fishchum

        It’s purely anecdotal, but the people that I’ve met who have bought/rented places w/o parking (or are considering to do so) have acknowledged the fact that they won’t be owning a private car. They seem happy enough with car share services, Uber, Lyft, etc….

        • Posted by Zig

          It’s almost like people with information are self selecting for these places

        • Posted by Futurist

          Then you must know just one other person who has bought. My friends who have bought a house or condo ALL have at least one vehicle. That’s reality.

          This project should have more parking because not having it will only create more difficulty for the adjacent residents to find parking, especially at night.

          • Posted by Zig

            You mean your friends would be dumb enough to buy a unit without parking in a dense neighborhood while being a car owner?

          • Posted by Fishchum

            Nope, more than one. Much more than one. But thanks for trying to tell me what I know.

          • Posted by Ep

            Then why shouldn’t the adjacent residents have off-street parking? “I was here first” is not actually an argument.

          • Posted by Mark

            The reality is that I can’t trust the claims of an armchair parking expert. Stick to building design. That’s your supposed expertise.

          • Posted by Sutro_Tower

            The fallacy in your argument is that existing area residents are entitled to less competition for scarce street parking and that any new development should be required to provide a parking space per unit to facilitate that habit.

          • Posted by Alai

            If people are serious about the “existing residents should have priority street parking” idea, the obvious answer is to make new apartments ineligible for street parking permits. It would make a lot more sense than requiring them to spend piles of money on garages they may not even want.

          • Posted by Futurist

            Don’t you people ever get out of the city where you need car to get there? Like, say a weekend in Tahoe or up the coast biking, or wine country?

            So, tell me you’re gonna rent a smarmy little Prius from Carshare that already reeks of the last users beer and baby diaper? Well, for me I’ll just stash my gear in my OWN leather lined SAV with my 15 speaker sound system and my XM radio, heated seats navigation and head up the coast for a weekend of freedom and fun.

            Ok, you have a choice? which is it?

          • Posted by Fishchum

            @Futurist – Just rent a car. It’s not that difficult to do.

          • Posted by anon

            Futurist, have you seriously not heard of rental cars? I can literally have one at my door and ready to go within ten minutes of deciding where to go.

          • Posted by Futurist

            Seriously? you guys rent cars for a weekend roadtrip? A junky rental car with tons of miles on it, nothing familiar to you, used by who knows what. You seem intent on believing that most people would do that. I think you’ve taken the Kool-Aid of anti-car owning and gotten high on it.

            Well then I applaud you for living the simple, clean monastic life that you do. Have a nice time with your plastic Kia up to Tahoe.

          • Posted by anon

            Um, what? The rental vehicle I took to Tahoe two weekends ago was a BMW X1 with less than a thousand miles on it. Also cleaner than nearly every privately owned vehicle that I see, since it’s professionally cleaned between each use…

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            “the obvious answer is to make new apartments ineligible for street parking permits” agree with this… the idea of restricting off-street parking while not restricting new street permits is a recipe for disaster. At this point, i dont think any new parking permits should be given out to residents of new buildings that have restricted parking

          • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

            From a policy perspective, denying street parking permits for residents of new developments in which the developer was allowed to not build sufficient parking makes some sense. But there is no way that would be legal. These residents pay taxes for the streets, and there is no legal basis to deny a permit to park on taxpayer-funded streets on the same basis as anyone else. Better option is to make builders construct sufficient parking so they don’t shove all those external parking-related costs onto the public.

          • Posted by Jake

            JR, currently to be eligible to get a residential parking permit your building has to be in the zone. The city could remove a building from the zone if it didn’t meet whatever off-street parking threshold was required.
            That would also remove the street parking spaces attached to the building lot from the zone. It would make for a patchwork of parking in/out of zone, but it would be legal. It would be easy to enforce when giving out permits, but more difficult to enforce or follow at the street level. Probably have to paint the curbs instead of just using street signs.

          • Posted by Alai

            If you wanted a small stretch of street to be outside an RPP zone, you could just put parking meters there. No unusual enforcement methods needed. The building would presumably have ground floor commercial space, so it would be appropriate.

          • Posted by Alai

            You, know, Futurist, when I was a kid, my parents took us to Tahoe. We rented a car just about every time– and we did have our own car. It’s just that they didn’t trust that car to make it there and back, and the perks (better gas mileage! working AC!) made up for the cost.

            Sometimes I think you’re a parody account. “Rent a car? Why would anyone possibly do that, when they can just jump into their own, late-model, luxury vehicle? I don’t understand– you must be drinking Kool-Aid.”

        • Posted by Mark

          Sadly, parking is being pushed because car ownership is practically required to get around the Bay Area given our pathetic transit options and sprawl mentality. Car sharing is an option, but for those people who want to live in the Mission and work in Cupertino, for example, driving is preferred over public transit.

          • Posted by Alai

            There’s something perfectly perverse about people protesting tech buses which take people to south bay jobs, and blaming the ‘techies’ for high housing prices etc– and then insisting that housing should be designed in order to maximize commuting convenience for the same.

          • Posted by bus rider

            Driving might be the preferred mode for regional commuters, but this spot is one of the better spots citywide for regional commuters who live (or wish to live) without a car. BART is a block away (as are a handful of Muni bus lines). From this location with BART, you’re about 30 minutes or less to Berkeley, Oakland, SFO, Millbrae/Caltrain and so much more. There’s a Muni line outside the door that will take you directly to the 22nd Street Caltrain stop. This is prime real estate for transit riders.

          • Posted by Jake

            Agreed that “this is prime real estate for transit riders.” And it shows in the lives of the people that live within a few blocks of the 24th St BART Station. About 40% of them with a job take transit to work, which is higher than the SF average. But even though there has been a BART station nearby for decades and buses for a century, there are still 2 car commuters from this location for every 3 transit commuters. BTW, those numbers are close to the average for the entire Mission. It turns out that having a BART station this close to your home vs a half mile away hardly changes the odds you will use it.

            The proximity of the destination to a BART station is more important. If you want to increase transit, build office buildings near BART stations, not housing. Using this parcel for housing instead of as a place of work will reduce the potential for transit ridership by more than adding one off-street parking space per unit, which is about the expected car ownership rate for this project.

            Also agree with the concept of “open your mind people.” Hopefully, open minds informed by eyes open to the facts.

  6. Posted by OMN

    are there any polls for this mission moratorium? everyone is treating it like the boogieman; do we even know if it has the numbers to pass?

  7. Posted by SueYu

    I voted NO and dropped my ballot off already.
    If it passes it will increase my property values, but if you read the full text its full of BS.
    We don’t need more crappy restrictions with hidden agenda behind it, what we need is less self-entitled activists and more owners, and to relocate Campos out of the USA.

    • Posted by Sflandlord

      Agreed. I own a building close by. But I’m going to vote against I just because I don’t like the people supporting it.

  8. Posted by observant neighbor

    I live nearby and my wife and I went carless (happily! easily!) for a number of years until we had kids. This building is mostly 1 BRs so I suspect it’s not going to house many families with children. Nine parking spaces is plenty.

  9. Posted by Ep

    I live nearby and am fine with the 9 parking spaces. Lots of off-street spot rental opportunities for those who do bring cars. And while people in the area complain a lot about street parking, I know from personal experience that it’s not bad at all (I rent a garage spot but am able to park on-street nearer to my house almost every time I park, and am considering ditching the garage). My only concern is that we are losing car-share spots as the gas stations that host them get developed. Hopefully the city adds more on-street car-share spots to make up for that.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles