4840 Mission Street Site

Plans to raze the long-standing Valente Marini Perata & Co. funeral home at 4840 Mission Street have been drawn. And as proposed, a 134-unit development will rise up to six stories in height across the 1.45-acre site, “the first major development in the Excelsior District in nearly 25 years.”

4840 Mission Street Rendering

From Van Meter Williams Pollack, the architects of the project for Bridge Housing:

The development splits the 1.45 acre parcel into two similarly sized parcels. The .78 acre Mission Street Parcel takes advantage of the [State Density Bonus Program] to provide the proposed 114 apartments, 113 affordable and a manager’s unit along the Mission Street frontage. Along the Alemany Blvd. side, the site includes 20 [market rate] townhouses with individual parking and private access driveway.

4840 Mission Street Elevation

The Mission Street frontage includes 8,300 [square feet] of commercial space with the primary entries for the commercial space, the Residential Lobby, and active transparent storefronts along Mission. The Plan also includes management offices and community space for the residents as an extension of the residential lobby; the community space looks out to the private residential courtyard.

4840 Mission Street Site Plan

Though there is the potential for providing sub-grade podium parking, it has been determined that Mission Street, being the high quality transit corridor, supports the proposal for providing no parking for the affordable housing, prioritizing residents who don’t own or require individual vehicles, as San Francisco’s transit first policy.

Also noted, the proposed development’s western building mass is being designed “in anticipation that eventually the [adjacent] Safeway site might provide a large scale development opportunity” as well.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Stakes Is High

    I’m very much excited to see how development and infill begins to take shape in the outer neighborhoods—maybe even more so than centrally. Obviously, the architecture won’t be as exciting, but seeing the low density, lesser-traveled neighborhoods get the much needed commercial space may actually make them feel / behave more like the live/work and transit oriented hoods they should be.

    • Posted by zig

      Excelsior is not low density when you consider all the people living in illegal units, closets, garages and 5 to a room

      • Posted by Nicholas Brown

        And where is your source of information on illegal units?

        • Posted by mamiel

          If you live in the Excelsior you know that the information about in-laws is correct. Every open house reveals a home with an in-law, parking is impossible even though all these homes are supposedly “single family” and come with garages. I’m not saying this as a complaint, just as an observation.

          • Posted by zig

            Not just inlaws but there is without a doubt more overcrowding of adults now. The housing stock was built for nuclear families and back in the day people did have a lot of kids but in many cases now I am sure you would find unrelated adults and multigenerational families crowded into those little houses with the inlaw in the garage

        • Posted by zig

          I was being somewhat facetious but my grandparents lived in the neighborhood as did my half brother and many relatives so have see the hood change over many decades.

        • Posted by Sabbie

          Based on first hand knowledge the in-law situation in District 10 is crazy. Many of these homes have not just one, but two or even three illegal in-law units. And college kids now are bunking up two per room. Anyone with first hand experience knows that parking in the Excelsior used be easy, but due to the in-law units has now become quite difficult. Also many of these places are fire death traps with poor egress and all sorts of jury rigged kitchens.

    • Posted by Alex740

      I am very interested as well, I think the outer neighborhoods are on the cusp of a renaissance. Millennials like myself are starting to settle down a bit but many of us don’t want to leave the city. These neighborhoods still have a walk able lifestyle but with far more room to enjoy than the established inner neighborhoods.

      I also think with the city becoming so packed with people, these neighborhoods are starting to feel a lot less desolate. I’m noticing in our neihghborhood (The Portola) many of the single family homes are being sold to young couples & families. Additionally, many other are starting to be rented to multiple 20 somethings which is starting to give the neighborhood a younger/hipper feel. It seems like history repeating itself, just like many of the once single family victorians that were converted into flats, the charming stucco bungalows are being split in two as well. Most of them have completely unfinished ground levels that can be converted fairly easily into completely separate flats. As long as the Bay Area continues to be a job center, I bet these neighborhoods will become much more desirable.

      • Posted by zig

        The issue I have with some of these areas is the housing stock itself is often awful and ugly even for SF. Some of the outer areas are kind of walkable if you live in the right part but many in SF are not that walkable and the transportation option are not so great and a little rough.

        To be honest I like Portola but could not see my wife riding the Muni out that way to downtown

        • Posted by cleverpunhere

          The housing stock in that area is not among the best nor among the worst. There are some very charming homes in the Crocker and Balboa park neighborhoods. And the mix will improve as the neighborhood does, too.

  2. Posted by Sam

    That safeway is so terrible

    • Posted by William

      Terrible is a compliment for this poster child for the worst dump supermarket in the entire city.

  3. Posted by Pero

    Are there any indications that the Safeway site could be redeveloped in the near future?

  4. Posted by scott f

    Awesome. This is walkable to Balboa Park BART, although the 14/14X would be more convenient.

    Any idea what’s going on with 4801 Mission, a block up at Russia Ave? I saw construction there, but no recent updates on Planning’s site.

  5. Posted by Just Me

    Oh, can’t we have a better architect? This just looks so Fremont TOD.

  6. Posted by CalCulver

    Is it just Halloween time or am I being demented and a bit “out there”?! I wish they could incorporate that kitschy sign into the project. A nod to the past and all that……

  7. Posted by bernal kid

    what about that historic mid-century modern funeral structure?

  8. Posted by Ellen

    Really? The cart situation is terrible but I don’t see how the one in Bernal is any better. The one on Monterey is awful for sure.

  9. Posted by LC

    Agree that the Safeway is by far the worst in SF in quality and service but why would they even consider taking away a necessary resource?!? Not everything you need is available at the mercardos

    • Posted by Pero

      My idea would be to integrate the Safeway into a larger mixed used structure similar to the Whole Foods on Ocean Avenue. Also, by moving parking underground, developers could use the space for more density and/or greenery. This is a prime location in the Mission/Ocean/Geneva street triangle and a more efficient use of space would benefit the entire neighbourhood.

  10. Posted by Dave

    So there will be a private alleyway between the two row of townhomes? Good move as backing out onto Alemany at times would be a bear.

    It looks as if the Alemany fronting townhomes will be set back a tiny bit more than the other homes on the block. A good thing if true. Allowing for maybe a double row of trees along Alemany as the rendering hints at.

    That or a row of tress and a row of shrubs.

  11. Posted by anon2

    I know this area well, and I think this is great. Great addition to the neighborhood and the city.

  12. Posted by Albert

    Hipper? Wtf does that mean. Hipper for who

  13. Posted by Alai

    113 affordable apartments: is this a subsidized project? The article makes no mention of that.

  14. Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

    This is where all the BMR should be built. Housing politics in SF are already distorted by people only considering the 7×7 and not the natural city with suburbs. On top of that, it seems all the BMR has to be built in the 3×3 urban core. There’s absolutely no justification for city government interfering on this level. If developers are required to provide affordable units for the city to play their little feel-good privilege lottery, then anywhere in the city should be fine.

    • Posted by Hunter

      Do you understand how the BMR system works? New construction “anywhere in the city” can either include a percentage of their units as BMR or pay into the city’s fund for housing, which is generally built “anywhere in the city” that land is available for purchase (or already owned by the city). My guess is that they also tend to focus on areas close to transit, which tends not to be the far western neighborhoods.

  15. Posted by SFRealist

    Perfect example of sensible development outside the city core. We can add people out here too, and presumably these will be more affordable than units in a gleaming tower

  16. Posted by formerly%whatever

    Is the redevelopment of the Jewish Home not considered major? Or do you not consider it part of the Excelsior? I think 265,000 sq ft is major.

    • Posted by Gabriel

      I think the Jewish home was built 30 years ago

  17. Posted by Chinatown

    Yay for private courtyards that nobody will use, taking up valuable space that could be used for more housing. And there’s way too much parking.

  18. Posted by Chris

    114 units without parking… That’s not going to end well for anyone in that neighborhood.

  19. Posted by donna

    Did I read this correctly.. there will be 113 Affordable apartments.. then later it says that none of the affordable housing units will have parking?

  20. Posted by dj

    yes this is true, it’s very crowded in the Excelsior I’m in the neighborhood….and that Safeway is always crowded as it is now. There needs to be another supermarket in this area to support the present population. I can’t imagine what this development is going to do with an overcrowded area.

  21. Posted by midge

    my family have all been laid out at Valente’s for the past few year as late as 2005′ Valente’s did not have the courtesy to send a letter or notice to my family who have papers and plans for when they die. Asked Matthew low long they will be along..His answer was forever Are they out of business or moved t another location. What a rip off. We need new management at the safeway store and more safety PARKING is just as important as apartments. PEPLE ARE PARKING IN OTHER PSPLE’S DRIVEWAYS WHEN THE OWNERS AWAY. tHEY DON’T AY TAXES N THE HOMES THEY ARE ILLEGALLY PARKED. hUGE CARS AND TRUCKS ARE A N, NO tHEY ALL IGNORE THE RED PAINTED SIGN PAINTED ON THE CURB. iT COSTS THE OWNER $450.00 I
    IF YOU APARK ON IT, IT’S $75.00 AND TOWED AWAY TO POLICE PARKING AND I WON’T MENTION HOW MUCH THAT WILL COST. NOT WORTH THE FEE. SO HAPPY PARKING.

  22. Posted by Jb10

    A welcome development for once. It should help renew a tired area of the city. Nearby McLaren Park is also underused. Finally, better transport and walkable links from Excelsior going north across 280 are needed.

Add a Comment

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