The year-long fight over Valencia Street bikeway continues.
When the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s board approved a new curbside Valencia bike lane design on Nov. 19, after a year with the controversial center-running bike lane, many expected it to be an end.
Weeks later, however, a nascent coalition of Valencia street merchants and residents has filed an appeal against the new design, demanding that the city re-evaluate the project.
The group — the Valencia Association of Merchants, Artists, Neighbors, and Organizations, or VAMANOS — maintains that the new bikeway project fails to address legal, environmental and community considerations required under the California Environmental Quality Act exemption granted for the project, according to the appeal.
The appeal was filed Dec. 4 to the Board of Supervisors. The board will hold a hearing on the matter on Jan. 28, 2025, at 3 p.m. The outcome could delay the planned January 2025 construction start for the side-running lanes.
Julio Ramos, an attorney representing VAMANOS, said the merchants feel “the city is not recognizing or appropriately studying” “a lot of impacts.”
Meanwhile, Ramos said, “VAMANOS wants it resolved as quickly as possible” so merchants and residents on Valencia Street can move on. “Hopefully, we can avoid litigation. And that the MTA will take a harder look at the environmental impacts of the project.”
VAMANOS currently has about 12 active members, two-thirds of which are merchants, according to its attorney Ramos. This includes Wrap & Roll, Santora Apt. & Bldg. Supplies, Sidewalk Juice, Valencia Whole Foods, Amado’s, and Jay’s Cheesesteak, according to a list shared by David Quinby, owner of Amado’s and an active member of VAMANOS.
In May, an email from the group listed Rossi Art Gallery, Yasmin, Amado’s, Consumer Auto Body Inc., Gola, Chic n’ Time, the Phoenix, Jay’s Cheesesteak, Valencia Whole Foods, and Sidewalk Juice.
The group is “being more militant” than the Valencia Corridor Merchants Association, Ramos said. “They’re not going to agree to the bike lane concepts without at least understanding what it means moving forward.”
Kevin Ortiz, the co-founder of VAMANOS, stepped aside from the Latinx Democratic Club in July of this year after allegations of a 2021 sexual-harassment incident.
SFMTA spokesperson Michael Roccaforte said in a statement that the new design is the result of outreach and engagement with the Valencia community throughout 2024. “From one-on-one merchant meetings and outreach events to block-by-block planning, every detail of our new curbside design reflects hundreds of conversations, community insights, our technical expertise and our commitment to safer streets that work for all.”
The appeal argues that the Valencia corridor’s historic character may be threatened by the proposed curbside bike lanes’ “modern, fragmented designs.” That design includes hundreds of plastic barriers, “unconventional bike lanes,” and “floating parklets,” which are parklets that will be separated from the sidewalk by the bike lane.
Another issue: the proposed bikeway may have an impact on the environment by removing parking. The new design will remove about 79 parking or loading spots, or 35 percent of the 225 spaces on Valencia between 15th and 23rd streets, according to the SFMTA. The appeal claims that will cause drivers to circle for parking spaces and worsen congestion.
The center bike lane removed about 70 parking spaces.
Additionally, the appeal claims, the floating parklets of the new design may pose safety risks, as they require employees of small businesses to cross bike lanes to serve customers sitting in parklets.
The move by VAMANOS has dismayed the Valencia Corridor Merchants Association, which was founded in early 2000s and has been a major player in negotiations with the SFMTA about the bikeway designs. President Manny Yekutiel said he understands the general sentiment in the appeal, but has “major concerns about this tactic.”
“Doing this has a very high likelihood of just extending the life of the center running bike lane by months, if not a year,” said Yekutiel, who said the merchants also fear that the appeal might push construction of the new bikeway into the spring and summer, the busier seasons for the commercial corridor.
Yekutiel said “It’s time for us to move on” from the bike lane discussions. The appeal, he said, is “just going to continue the fighting. It’s going to continue the debate. It’s going to hurt. It’s going to make it even harder for the Valencia corridor to start a new chapter.”
Unfortunately the floating parklets and the loss of parking are both terrible ideas, and were incorporated to appease the other groups.
I applaud these business owners, who are the heart of our commercial corridor. We need a thriving corridor, and FAST. Too much program in the design, just cut the parklets , it was working fine before all the shantytown-like structures showed up in the pandemic.
CEQA reform might be the single most important issue facing California over the next decade.
So many inconsistencies… Merchants complain about the lack of parking spots but approve a plan with fewer parking spots and that doesn’t remove the left turn ban. This change is not going to improve car traffic.
Now VAMANOS files an appeal using the notoriously BS “environmental impacts”. In that group, Rossi Art Gallery and Yasmin, which have the same owner, has an unused 2-spot parklet on 20th, totally unmaintained and degusting. The restaurant closed after alleged arson, which is probably a bigger reason than the bike lane.
Amado’s is already closed, blaming the bike lane and not the flood that forced them to close during the renovation.
The Phoenix bar has been closed for more than a year because the building was demolished to make room for a new one that is not yet finished.
So who’s actually having issues mainly because of the bike lane and not “just the economy”?
Is VAMANOS just concerned the removal of the center lane and installation of will cause a downturn in people frequenting their businesses? It feels like kids holding their breath till they get what they want. “Environmental Considerations?” REALLY?
As for the city, PICK A LANE!
Tumlin resigned at the right time.
Nearly half of those businesses have been closed down for months or years (Amado’s, Phoenix) or have unreliable opening hours and are frequently closed (Yasmin, Rossi).
Don’t listen to these dumb asses.
Who should listen to your anecdotes instead of a suit filed in court exactly?
The newly proposed street layout is possibly even more deranged than the ridiculous center bike lane design. The easy, least expensive and correct solution is obvious: get rid of the feeding sheds. Then restore the parking and bike lanes with either one nearer to the curb. The feeding sheds (or whatever you call them) are the problem.
A bike lane running between sidewalk and parklets? A Captain Obvious level non-starter, more so in the age of electric scooters and bikes, no? Then add to that a line of plastic bollards that’ll look thoroughly ratted out after a year or so , plus nixing a bunch more parking. Well, color me surprised somebody out there wasn’t going to get signed up for that.
Any delay that can get the head of the MTA screwed on straight is a good thing. The approved construction that would relegate bikes back to the gutters and remove even more parking was going to be a hate-hate answer for both the biking community and the merchants. What was vociferously expressed numerous times at the 19 November MTA Board meeting is that bikers much prefer the double-wide two way lanes, as it is far safer and more efficient and better pavement than the narrow lanes placed in the gutters that weave back and forth for every intersection and parklets, running over broken crumbling curb-side pavement. Looking at how other cities have solved these issues, the right answer is a side-running 2-way bike lane that leaves the other side of the street as a two lane, either one-way or two-way for vehicles. Hence vehicles are not blocked into a lane by a double parker.
Just close Valencia to cars already. When they used to do this on weekends, it was packed. If you have a good business model, people will find a way to get there.
Curbside protected bike lanes are standard in cities that have had success getting larger numbers of people to be/feel safe biking.
The floating parklets aren’t great, but have worked ok in other locations. If they don’t they can be converted to non-floating in the future.
Remember the times where there were no whiners in this city? In the eyes of the world, we look so weak, so stupid, so uneducated, so trivial. There is a solution, let’s shut down Valencia st and make the street a new park since we don’t have access to nature in SF…lol..
Famous San Francisco whiners include: the freeway revolt; “tune in, drop out”; natives complaining about newcomers since the ’90s (1890s, not 1990s, read “Making San Francisco American” for great discussions of that); whining about Chinatown existing (tried to evict them in 1906 and before that too); whining about Victorians existing at all (well before loving them); whining about people using their not-preferred form (SF v. Frisco v. San Fran etc etc etc).
Which is not to say I love the current state of things; we need CEQA and zoning reform so that our kids and elders can afford to sty here. But whining is a grand SF tradition that I’m happy to take part in.
I knew the side bike lane would lead to more parking loss. A less safe bike lane and less parking. Pedestrians might like it more.
I think this bike lane is more loathed than the health insurance industry.
Whatever it takes to keep the CENTER LANE is good. It had a rocky start, but most bicyclists, new ones too, talk about how much safer it is. It’s also much closer to just pedestrianizing Valencia. The side-running lane is going to remove a lot more parking, loading, and curb space. How can VCMA say that’s what they prioritize, and also keep removing it? The only reason VCMA wants the new design is so there can be more double parking, which was the original problem, and worse for everyone. I don’t love VAMANOS, but keeping the Center Lane is better. Better for bikes, and better for merchants. Tell your Supervisor to vote in favor of the Center Lane!
With loser Jeff Tumlin leaving, who cares about Manny? He keeps pushing this issue as a way to boost profile. Total narcissist. He needs to go back and solve the Palestine conflict and leave SF alone.
Ride a bike then have an opinion about this for crying out loud. I see you driving into the area where you have your business and clogging up spots for your customers and residents in a dense neighborhood. You are asking for more rights to the space here than you deserve. I have been trying so hard not to boycott your businesses over this issue but now it’s settled. You don’t care about the safety of your neighbors. You will get no more from me.
Yep, I decided a while back that I was done with any of the businesses that were keeping those anti-bike lane signs in their window. There’s a couple of them I’m particularly sad to not go in again, but my family’s been getting around the neighborhood on bikes for years now, and they clearly don’t want us around.
Not bike riders, bikes-only activist trolls who think it’s us-vs-them. I’m not going to comment on the attitude I’m detecting locally.
Extending the life of the center lane is a good thing! it has proven to be much safer for bikers. Look it up – it has been a success by basically every measurable.
The area where it’s failed is on the PR side – Mission Local, SFIST, etc all ran with a pre-cooked ‘center lane bad’ narrative that’s been difficult to shake, even when the facts do not support the ‘center lane dangerous’ narrative. The facts actually say the opposite.
As a regular Valencia street biker I hope they keep it forever
The center bike lane is aesthetically grating and robs the street of a sense of place, let alone destination that it once was. As it stands, Valencia Street has been turned into transportation facility, not unlike Van Ness, 16th Street, Taraval.
The data (ie tax receipts) does not back up your claim that Valencia St. is no longer a destination. And anecdotally from walking down the sidewalk, it seems as popping as ever.
Regardless, I agree is not as aesthetically pleasing as say shutting the street to cars all together, but I will sacrifice some beauty to have fewer biking accidents – especially since my son bikes on the street as well. The center lane prevents right-turning cars from running him.
It’s true, Valencia is pretty fun these days. IMO the main problem is landlords demanding ridiculous rents.
“I will sacrifice some beauty to have fewer biking accidents” – I won’t, because this doesn’t help that whatsoever.
Walk farther. Beyond a couple blocks off 16th Street – Valencia is dead.
I live on Valencia closer to 23rd. it’s poppin
This article should make mention of Scott Wiener’s SB 922 (2022), which extended the CEQA exemption for active transportation projects (read: bike lanes) through 2030. Anyone attempting to pull CEQA as a stall tactic for a bike project is unserious and should be ridiculed for wasting everyone’s time and money.
Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.
No more public money to be wasted fighting CEQA lawsuits from litigious malcontents.
Don’t respond; don’t change the bike lanes; don’t do anything; and simply Valencia Street stew it its own juices.
How about the City follow the law in the first place.
my comment was not uploaded yesterday..censorship?
Ali —
Good afternoon. These comments are monitored in real-time, and nobody is hovering over the keyboard awaiting that next comment. The world will continue without instantaneous updates of reader commentary on streetscape projects. Getting to it now.
JE
VAMANOS is correct–the City should simply revert to the previous design and be forced to enforce delivery vehicles blocking the bike lane on the blocks where the sidewalks have been widened, and designate the center lane for delivery parking on the rest of the corridor.