It was that back in 2014 that we first noted that the LaSalle Industrial Park complex at 749 Toland Street, upon which four single-story warehouse buildings with a total of 448,000 square feet of space currently sit, bisected by I-280, was on the market in western Bayview.  And as we outlined at the time, the 17-acre site presents an opportunity for the largest industrial redevelopment in San Francisco in over a decade, the draft plans for which were subsequently drawn.

Since refined by Prologis, the massive “San Francisco Gateway” project would rise up to 115 feet in height on either side of I-280 and yield nearly 1.2 million square feet of “Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR)” space, with 760,000 square feet allocated to parcel/last mile delivery uses, 372,000 square feet for wholesale and storage, and a token 35,000 square feet for light manufacturing/maker uses; along with parking for 1,166 vehicles, 72 loading spaces, two logistics yards and 8,400 square feet of ground floor retail space.

A priority processing application for the Gateway project, which would require the 65-foot height limit for the site to be increased, was approved last year and the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project is now about to get underway.

As a point of reference, the proposed Gateway project, which is likely to spark grander plans for the surrounding neighborhood and parcels, not to mention plenty of conflict, would be around three times the size of Amazon’s proposed distribution and delivery station to rise upon the Prime Showplace Square parcel at 900 7th Street. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

24 thoughts on “Plans for Massive New Distribution Center(s) Closer to Reality”
  1. This is much better location for an Amazon hub. I think the recology site in showplace square should be preserved for housing.

    1. Too bad the Potrero Hill NIMBYs fought tooth and nail against the zoning change that would have allowed residential on the Recology site. I can’t wait for the Amazon hub to be built (which complies with existing zoning). Serves the Potrero Hill NIMBYs right and will stand as a monument to NIMBY stupidity for decades to come

        1. Yes but had folks not delayed the housing proposal for so long, it may have gotten underway before Amazon’s offer came in, no? How long was that period?

  2. What, pray tell, might these grander plans for the surrounding area? Possibly bio-tech/life science space? It seems a natural at a time when bio-tech space has about a 2% vacancy rates and companies can’t get enough. The massive A’s development in Oakland could see a good chunk if its space devoted to bio-tech. San Carlos has seen two properties recently scooped up for planned bio-tech development. In addition to the 1.6 million feet Alexandria is already developing in San Carlos.

    Hopefully this is what these “grander plans” entail.

    1. I’d love to see a study about how PDR’s good intentions have morphed into “biotech space” and warehouse space in the city and region. This part of town is really, for better or worse, set up for industrial uses. Not a lot ammenities nearby for biotech workers vs. mission bay and potrero hill or SSF.

      1. PDR’s good intentions have morphed into “biotech space” and warehouse space
        D as in not just “duh!” but distribution as well.

      2. MB is pretty much built out and some of the space that has been approved and is set to build is being morphed from office to biotech space. The 20 million feet of empty office space by and large can’t be converted to biotech use – and biotech is one of the few options SF has to attract good paying jobs in large numbers in the medium term.

        Don’t be surprised if the already approved SE waterfront projects seek approval to convert to biotech use from office use. The Central SOMA is not viable for biotech use so this area, despite being “set up” for industrial uses, probably is not in demand for industrial use. If this area were fast-tracked for biotech use those amenities biotech workers want would follow.

        SF needs a strategic economic plan. SF has been slower in its recovery from the pandemic than most other US cities Oakland and Hayward (the latter city targeting industrially zoned areas for conversion to biotech) are making big efforts to lure biotech jobs from SSF and the Peninsula. SF should be doing the same and when the editor mentioned “grander plans” my thoughts went to biotech as part of those plans.

          1. Yes, it’s not being proposed here, but there are those TBD “grander plans” for the immediate area.

        1. speaking from someone in biotech who looked at SF and chose SSF, why would biotech choose SF over SSF or even some east bay locations. Its more expensive, zoning sucks, more rules, taxes higher, streets more filthy, harder parking for no-SF residents, not safe, and fewer colleagues around the area. biotech is older than tech and fewer % of employees live in SF. SF would have to offer some serious incentives.

          1. Well that’s the problem, you’re thinking like a scientist; try thinking like a booster: everybody who is anybody is a carless twenty-something who needs wants demands their place of work to be a quick Uber away from clubs, shows and overpriced restaurants.

  3. It’s worth noting that this area is where the old Islais creek channel and wetlands lay, burried beneath a thin layer of fill, and will be very prone to sea rise flooding and increased storm surges.

  4. So this is generic “last mile delivery” space that could be used by multiple retailers e.g. Wayfair, Target etc?

    These last mile delivery warehouses really do twist the knife in existing SF brick and mortar retailers. It’s already tough to compete with 2-5 day delivery. Damn near impossible when it becomes same day or one day.

    1. I think the only brick and mortar retailers facing competition from Amazon are big (multi)national corporate chains like Walgreens, CVS, etc., and all of them have also heavily invested in online retail. I order most things online, and if for some reason I need something last minute, and I don’t want to use a last minute delivery service. then that last minute thing is almost always found at the nearby Walgreens, Staples, etc. That said I do by art and handcrafted items from local stores, but I never buy those types of things from large online retailers, and art and artisan stores aren’t really in competition with Amazon, etc in the first place. Many of these local art stores do have their own websites through which you can make purchases, but again, they aren’t competing with large online retailers.

  5. While we’re at it can we fix the ridiculous PDR zoning in the Mission? It’s absurd that such a great neighborhood is held back because a few old cranks want to keep PDR in place to depress development in one of the best areas for residential and mixed use in the city.

    1. Where can one find a map of the existing zoning in the Mission and comments that suggest this? Is this referring to the area roughly north of 18th and east of Harrison?

    2. The Mission has been among the fastest, if not the fastest, gentrifying area in the entire city for at least the last twenty years, so it’s a bit much to suggest that development has been depressed by a few old cranks or the remnants of PDR zoning. PDR is in place to preserve space for PDR-type jobs. How do you quantify a neighborhood being “held back”? Held back from whom? Whose planning preferences qualify as “ridiculous”?

      What you and flippers, developers, and other hangers-on in the real estate “game” seem to want is even more displacement of the people already living and working in the Mission in favor of arrivistes from elsewhere who can pay top dollar for newly-built condos and rental “units”. The people already living in the mission don’t want that.

      1. SB330 protects properties with tenants from displacement, and redeveloping owner occupied homes at greater density does not cause displacement. Redeveloping PDR properties as dense residential certainly does not cause displacement either.

      2. The biggest reason, BY FAR, that the Mission is gentrifying is because not enough housing is being built. Your directly implied policy preference here is to accelerate the displacement of existing residents by continuing the exact policies that are primarily driving displacement in the first place. And it’s not clear you understand that, at all.

Leave a Reply

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