Central Freeway Parcel O

The public hearing for the proposed six-story Hayes Valley development with 108 below-market-rate apartments to rise up to 50-feet in height at 455 Fell Street, upon San Francisco’s Central Freeway Parcel O which once served as the northern half of the Hayes Valley Farm, will be held this week.

455 Fell Rendering

In addition to the 108 apartments, the proposed development includes 1,200 square feet of retail space at the corner of Laguna and a mid-block community garden and passage between Hickory and Fell.

455 Fell Rendering: Hickory Street Passage

The project as proposed by Mercy Housing and designed by Leddy Maytum Stacy and Paulett Taggart Architects includes a storage room for 108 bikes but no garage for autos. And while at least one neighbor is on record as opposing the project for its lack of parking in an already congested neighborhood (“it is insane to think that no one living, working, or visiting this building will not have a car or truck”), San Francisco’s Planning Department is recommending the City’s Planning Commission approve the project as proposed.

And speaking of concerns, from the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association which supports the development:

“We ask that the midblock passage be kept from being lifeless and uninviting. We are very disappointed with the outcome of [Avalon’s] neighboring Parcel P, which is barren. In that case a promise to the community was broken. And the city has done nothing to mitigate the broken promise. We urge that something be memorialized in advance of approval, and that you aggressively push Avalon Bay to cooperate in creating a full mid-block passage welcoming to all neighbors.”

If approved, Mercy is planning to break ground on 455 Fell in 2017 and open its doors in early 2019.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by observant neighbor

    Why no “density bonus” for affordable housing here???

    • Posted by sassySFboy

      aahhh, good point, hopefully it can be taller by 1 floor for bonus, but based on area zoning, doubtful. Hickory side is missed opportunity for taller, more density/housing. Overall though, not bad, so let’s get building party started!

  2. Posted by Joshua

    Why do all these building look exactly the same? And why so short?

  3. Posted by Notcom

    “it is insane to think that no one living, working, or visiting this building will not have a car or truck”

    “a promise to the community was broken. And the city has done nothing to mitigate the broken promise.”

    Wow, 2 (near) universal truths about development in one post…a twofer !!

  4. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    Short on one side due to Hickory St. and deck areas behind for residents. See prior post which shows the building outline and design. Roofline could use some accent, but when you see the overall its a positive for new housing in the district.

  5. Posted by Sue Yu

    This project needs parking, or anyone who lives there needs to be either:

    1) banned from having owning a car, OR
    2) banned from getting the SFMTA neighborhood parking permit.

    If the City’s focus is ‘Transit First’, then it needs to enforce it by adding this to the CC&R’s of this property.

    • Posted by anon

      Or we could just properly price the neighborhood parking permits. But you know, market pricing things is not a San Francisco thing.

  6. Posted by Jim

    As Sue Yu comments, the solution to the parking issue is incredibly simple. Be sure the neighborhood for blocks around requires neighborhood parking permits (I don’t know if it does or does not, at present), and then require in the CCRs that no one living in the building can get a neighborhood parking permit. Problem averted.

  7. Posted by Chis

    Expect it is not a political feasible solution, and the people proposing it are well aware it will never happen. It would be viewed as discrimination against lower-income people and it will never happen. So, pack this idea up with all the other pie-in-the-sky proposals and move on.

  8. Posted by alberto rossi

    What does “below market rate” mean in this case?

    [Editor’s Note: Try clicking the “108 below-market-rate apartments” link above for the answer.]

  9. Posted by gone on

    I am so glad to have gone on. The boosters cannot see how they are changing SF. How could so many be so blind. Go see “the Big Short” (or “if we are making money then everyone is happy”)

  10. Posted by Jake

    This building is not currently in a Residential Permit Parking Area, though it is next to one. A building in San Francisco can request to be included in a residential parking zone. Until it does and is approved, the residents will not be eligible for a residential parking permit.

    California State law limits the price of residential parking permits to the cost to administrate the program, which in SF currently is $111/year. San Francisco cannot “market price” them.

    San Francisco could install parking meters throughout the neighborhood and “market price” the meters, which is essentially what SFPark does. There are meters about a block from here. I’m going to guess that expanding meters throughout Hayes Valley would not be welcome by the current residents.

    • Posted by EcceMorons

      When a building requests to be included in a residential parking zone so its residents can get parking permits, are neighboring properties informed of this request so they can add their opinions (such as – “neighborhood already lacks street parking” etc.)?

  11. Posted by Conifer

    The best solution: owning a car should be a crime, with capital punishment on conviction. No appeals.

    This solves the problem of leftist politicians tormenting just the weak: they get to torment everyone equally.

  12. Posted by Brad

    Site prep seems to have begun in the past week or so. Looking forward to seeing this built!

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles