A rendering of the new development from Shatara Architecture. View more (PDF)
Last week, reader Daniel F. sent us a copy of a SF Planning Department public notice (PDF) that is posted near the vacant lot on the corner of Balboa Avenue and 36th Avenue.
The notice is for a new mixed-use development designed by Shatara Architecture that will include 6 residential units and 3,900 square feet of commercial space on the building’s ground floor (tenant TBD).
The four-story building will include 9 parking spaces for residents in the basement, with the entrance to the garage on 36th Avenue. The building will also feature penthouse units, roof decks, and a 1,294 square foot rear yard which equates to 25% of the lot area.
The building will be 40 feet tall (4 stories) which is slightly taller than its neighbors – a 3 story building on Balboa, and a 2 story home on 36th Avenue.
We reached out to Shatara Architecture via phone and email to try and get some renderings to share with you, but we did not hear back from them (as in ancient times, city planner Aaron Starr tells us they only have paper versions on file and we’d have to show up in person to get copies…). The firm has experience with restaurant, commercial and residential projects.
UPDATE 7/25/13: We received renderings from Shatara Architecture – view the PDF
The permit for the project was filed back in 2008. Once the public notice period has expired on July 25, and assuming no requests or discretionary reviews are filed, the project will be approved by the Planning Department. No word yet on when construction would begin.
Sarah B.
The currently vacant lot at Balboa & 36th Avenue. Photo by Daniel F.
There’ll be residents in the basement? I’m surprised after all those years of it being an empty lot they’re finally going to do something with it. We are regulars at Simple Pleasures and have always wondered why that’s been empty so long. That’s going to be a great view for those living on top of that building!
Yeah, Finally!! Let’s get this approved and built ASAP. We don’t need empty lots of dirt (or those billiboards)!
With a renovated Cassava Bakery, Marla Bakery coming down the street (in a year or so), renovations at Cabrillo Playground, and renovations from Balboa Streetscape Improvement…lots of good things are happening in the neighborhood.
@KB “9 parking spaces located in the basement” from SF Planning Dept. notice.
@JayJ – I was kidding. I knew what she meant! – Also can’t wait for Balboa street to be torn up and repaved between 35th & 36th. Then Ahmed can start working on the approved parklet in front of Simple Pleasures!
Outrageous amount of parking. Let’s hope the planners deny this one until the parking is brought down to at least 1:1. We don’t need more traffic jams out here.
Now we need a new xmas tree lot 🙁
i would rather keep the xmas tree lot
this is a brownfield–i heard a service station was here and torn down in the early ’60s. tanks were never removed. development of this property without proper remediation and cleanup could be hazardous for the neighborhood. who do we call?
It was a gas station, but I don’t think it was torn down until later than the 60’s. I remember seeing the sign into the 80’s. The pedestal is still there. IIRC, the Jehovah’s Temple on Arguello and Fulton was also a gas station waaay back when. I can’t recall if they ever removed the tanks at 36th.
Also, how would making parking a 1:1 ratio DECREASE traffic? By providing LESS parking, it will spill onto the streets. All those illegal in-laws taking up the parking is why parking is already abysmal. Every unit will likely have at least 2 cars, as the only people who can afford to live there will be either (a) wealthy enough to afford it e.g. DINKS (double income no kids, each with their own car) or (b) roommates from USF or other young urban professionals with each having their own car. They will likely have the car (parked on the street all day) as they 31 it downtown. This logic fails because people are going to have cars, it’s a fact. By providing LESS parking, you are not going to legislate people into your desired behavior. Carrots work better than sticks.
OT, but you say the avenue first, the street second, and you don’t say “avenue” or “street” as the numbered aves never intersect the numbered streets – so it’s simply “36th and Balboa.” Balboa is a STREET. With the exception of Arguello (Blvd) and La Playa (St.), all N-S roads are “Aves” and with the exception of Geary (Blvd), Shoreview (Ave) and Point Lobos (Ave), all E-W roads are “streets.” This even includes Tacoma. I once met Vivian Ho and told her the same thing and it went in one ear and out the other.
See:
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/How-to-Talk-Like-a-San-Franciscan-3371767.php
Yes, I am nitpicking, but this is the proper way of saying things.
A parklet at Simple Pleasures? Isn’t the new bakery in the former Crown Lock going to have one too? So we will have two useless lots within a two block radius? Whatever for? We’re right next to GG Park. We do not need an ugly parklet. I know these businesses use the ugly parklets as an extension for dining but why, as a taxpayer, am I subsidizing your business? If you want outdoor seating, then you should apply for a permit to set up tables outside. Do not waste good parking spaces for the benefit of their businesses. It’s not like they will let you sit there. They will only let their customers sit there.
Oh yeah, I don’t own a car but I am anti parklet. I think it’s a waste of space and only benefits the businesses because they can stuff more tables and make money off of them.
It seems like it IS going to be about a 1:1 parking space to unit ratio. There will probably be 2-3 living units per floor for the upper 3 floors and the ground floor business owner will get one, too. Seems to me that having 9 parking spaces would necessarily require spillover to the street when there’s at least 2 cars per unit.
Let me add that 700 36th Ave. was once Bob’s Mobile Station (1950 phone book), that may have lasted into the 1960s, but the corner lot has been vacant for over 40 years, with the exception of the annual rental for the sale of Christmas trees. I think it is the last vacant corner lot left in the Richmond, but never heard why it was not developed. It very likely still has the toxic tanks in the ground and a high land price, both things to scare off investors. It’s about time the trash-dumping site was developed.
Regarding the proper designation of streets in San Francisco in general and the Richmond specifically. sfresident has it almost right:
The street name committee in 1909 tried after the earthquake and fire to correct confusing or conflicting street names, particularly in new sections of the city, so that avenues ran north-south and streets ran east-west. They didn’t change older sections of the city. Two streets in San Francisco were designated as without title: The Embarcadero and La Playa. Any designation of La Playa as a street or avenue was added by mapquest, google or real estate agents, but officially, it has its Spanish name, The Beach!
I know a number of USF students who, yes, share apartments. None have cars– they don’t particularly need them, and can’t afford them anyway. The idea that we should require every new resident to pay for car storage (at 325 square feet for the average garage space, enough room for a small studio) whether they even need it or not, is utterly bonkers.
If you want to deal with the issue of street parking, maybe it’s time to rethink the policy of providing street parking for $9 a month, when a tiny studio will run you $900. At that price, of course you’re going to have a shortage.
@Alai – if you don’t want a car, that is fine! But many people need/want/choose to have a car; and just because you don’t believe in them doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the ability to have a parking place! When there is the ability to build in parking to a building, it makes sense to do so. As someone else said, the people who live there will probably take the bus to work – better to have those cars off street then clogging up the street! Muni is not reliable, cabs don’t like coming out to our side of the city…. and bikes are not always the answer either!
Right. I’m not arguing that parking places should be forbidden or something. I’m just saying they shouldn’t be required. People who want them can rent/buy/build them, and people who don’t won’t have to. Simple as that.
This is terrible. More dense housing, traffic, parking and by the way, there goes the nice christmas tree lot which has been available to the neighbors for many years. I guess Simple Pleasures will enjoy it once the construction is completed
I swear I always discover these things 24 hours after the comment deadline. Why is there no mention of bicycle parking. “San Francisco requires residential properties with 4 or more units* to provide Class 1 bike parking free of charge to residents, beyond allowing residents to keep their bikes inside their unit.” http://www.sfbike.org/?planningcode
Any hints on the price of these units? The only positive thing I can say this point is at least the units have walls. Unlike the new condo units on California and 4th (ish) and Divisadero that are nearly all windows. I am would love to see their heating bills. So much for energy efficiency.
In Japan where I lived for years, they required a proof of parking place before you could even buy a car. They have parking problems like you wouldn’t believe. But if you have no place to park, then you can’t get a car. Guaranteed that every car had a place to come home to, whether a private house or rental lot or garage.
Sfresident doesn’t understand the difference between a parklet (public space) and sidewalk tables (for customers only), and additionally doesn’t understand that a parklet benefits ALL members of the community while a parking space only benefits private car owners.
“I know these businesses use the ugly parklets as an extension for dining but why, as a taxpayer, am I subsidizing your business?”
Parklets are not paid for by taxpayer money.
“If you want outdoor seating, then you should apply for a permit to set up tables outside. Do not waste good parking spaces for the benefit of their businesses. It’s not like they will let you sit there. They will only let their customers sit there. ”
Sidewalk tables are for customers of the business only and require a permit. A parklet is public space just like any public park and has the rules of public parks. Yes, customers of the business it’s in front of will eat there and the business benefits, but EVERYONE is allowed to eat there.
I really don’t understand why so many people complain on this blog about things like (gasp!!) the loss of ONE STUPID PARKING SPACE for something that will benefit of the whole community…especially when they don’t even own a car. If you think a parking space (for an empty car) is more valuable than a public community-building space for everyone’s enjoyment you have some serious entitlement issues to deal with. Please move somewhere boring and let the rest of us enjoy San Francisco.
Clearly used the same architect as every other boring multi-unit building in The Richmond. Must be the cheapest one. Sigh…
I agree with the Japan approach. We have a supply and demand issue, more people want to live here than can and the City has to approve it. Why don’t we say as a condition of moving in, if you have kids, you can have 1 car, if you don’t have kids, you can’t have any, you have to be a bus or a zipcar person. You can live elsewhere if you want, but we will reserve new spots for those who agree to this. That way we can add housing, taxes, population and families with children, which we need as a City, without hurting the parking issue. We could also add a few lots in open spots, a few parking lots could help a lot. I agree we don’t want too many cars. Those who have illegal inlaw apartments should only rent them to people who agree not to have a car and there should be amnesty if they don’t have a car, with the exception of families with children. That would incentivize those who need to rent their basement to pay the mortgage to rent to people who prefer bikes or public transit, not private car owners. Japan is onto the right track.
Parking lots cause too much stress. We shouldn’t allow parklets. Put tables in front and let people walk around but never take a parking spot out of the neighborhood if possible. People would rather have to walk around rather than spend 20 minutes looking for parking. We don’t need those parklets. They should also allow parking at all bus zones and fire hydrants, let people walk out and let the fire department break a window once every 100 years if there is a fire.
I agree, more people want to move here than can. If you want to move into a new place, we can require you to sign a contract that you can be evicted if you don’t agree to 1 car if you have children, no cars if you don’t. Zipcars should be allowed as that’s many people sharing one car and they already have a designated parking space, but no one should be able to own their own car. Also, that’s a good idea on the inlaws, the City will never enforce that law because they’d loes tax revenue but they should say, if you rent to people who own cars, we’ll enforce it. All illegal inlaws should have to operate under that law, kid, 1 car, no kids, no cars, zipcars allowed, bikes allowed.
The funny thing is that there are currently something like 20,000 street parking spaces in the richmond. The problem is that when there are 1030 cars looking for 1000 parking spaces, you get a severe problem, with 30 drivers circling and cursing, despite the fact that the shortage is actually quite minimal. You don’t need to go to any draconian measures– you only need to reduce the number of cars by a few percent to essentially eliminate the problem.
To quote Charles Dickens: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.”
The problem with the current system is that if you ever succeeded in eliminating the problem (for example, by adding a few dozen spaces in a lot), over time a few dozen people would say “oh! It’s easy to find parking! I’ll get a car again.” And then you’re right back where you started.
Likewise, eliminating spaces temporarily results in a worse situation, but then people get frustrated, and after a few weeks someone will dump their car and someone else will clean up their garage or what have you, and the situation will return to the status quo.
Fascist Trolls invade the Richmond. Film at 11.
Marie: if there was ever a location that NEEDS a parklet, it’s in front of SP! In fact, some time ago, after dodging the crowd completely overrunning the sidewalk in front of Simple Pleasures, I mentioned to Ahmed that he really needed to get a permit for a parklet to alleviate the crowds blocking the sidewalk in front of the cafe. Ahmed replied that he already had the permit but had to hold off constructing it until the (re)construction of Balboa street – which I didn’t know about at the time. As for curmudgeon snivellers like “sfresident”: his/her whine just shows us they have no understanding of the economics, the sociology, nor the politics of parklets. The “debate” over parklets ended LONG ago and parklets are part of San Francisco now. In fact the “debate” about parklets isn’t even over their existence but are over the style and architecture of the parklets themselves. That shows how far embedded parklets have become in San Francisco!
The developers should give money to expand bike sharing to the Richmond like they did in Toronto
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/09/11/bixi_condo_developers_contribute_1_million_to_toronto_bikeshare_expansion.html