July 6, 2010
T-Minus Two Days To CityPlace (935-965 Market) Commission Vote
As we wrote on June 10:
The proposed development of CityPlace at 935-965 Market is back in front of San Francisco’s Planning Commission this afternoon for EIR certification with a preliminary Planning recommendation to certify (we've got our fingers crossed).
The proposed project would demolish the three two-to five-story buildings on the 1.06-acre project site and redevelop the site with one five-story, 90-foot-tall retail building, with associated building services and subsurface parking.
The building would contain approximately 375,700 gsf, with about 264,010 gsf of retail uses; about 4,830 gsf of common areas; about 10,900 gsf of mechanical and storage space; and about 95,960 gsf of parking, loading, and circulation space with approximately 188 parking spaces.
The most likely point of contention, said parking for which Conditional Use authorization is required and has already been reduced by 13 proposed spaces.
As a plugged-in tipster quickly corrected:
While CityPlace is indeed calendared for this afternoon, it’s going to be continued to a meeting in July. We’ll get the exact date shortly. Today’s meeting is apparently going to be short a couple Commissioners, and the Commission wants to hear this with as many members present as possible – so a Commissioner (not sure which one) asked that it be continued.
And as we added a few hours later: The new date for the Planning Commission to review and vote on the certification of CityPlace's EIR is July 8. T-minus two days.
∙ CityPlace Seeks A Green Light To Get Moving On Market (935-965) [SocketSite]
∙ Details To Augment Designs For "CityPlace" (935-965 Market Street) [SocketSite]
∙ Livable City's CityPlace Opposition: Parking (And Design) [SocketSite]
First Published: July 6, 2010 7:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
An uninspiring design for a tacky stretch of Market which won't add any visual interest or warmth to the existing uninspiring streetscape.
Posted by: Gil at July 6, 2010 12:21 PM
While one may take issue with the design, I am a very enthusiastic supporter of this development. This is exactly what mid-Market needs. I hope the reduction in parking spaces will be enough to sidestep that debate. I personally think some parking is necessary. But the most important thing is that this project will be a huge step in the right direction in terms of improving Market St. If this is killed, it's back another five year before another proposal surfaces.
Posted by: Michael E at July 6, 2010 12:47 PM
Yeah, it will be way better than what's there now. I'd like to see parking reduced, but if that doesn't happen I'm still fine with the project, and the worst thing that could happen is for the project to die completely.
Posted by: lyqwyd at July 6, 2010 12:54 PM
On the Planning Commission, you can be sure that our German comrade Moore will vote NO, using both of her votes, her own and that of her poodle. They always vote against anything good for San Francisco that upsets the "culture" of the Tenderloin. As one of their leaders, (Land)Lord Daly of Fairfield, said: drug dealers and prostitutes need a place to live too.
Sugaya will probably also vote NO.
The deciding votes will be cast by Borden and Miguel, as usual.
Dr Antonini and Bill Lee will probably vote for this because it will help a neighborhood which desperately needs help.
Posted by: Conifer at July 6, 2010 1:04 PM
"I hope the reduction in parking spaces will be enough to sidestep that debate."
A 6% reduction isn't significant.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at July 6, 2010 1:27 PM
Ah, yes, those evil parking spaces.
In Paris, a city hardly pro-automobile, every park and every available open space has a garage beneath it, as big and as deep as possible. They always want more parking.
Why can't San Francisco be more like Paris?
Perhaps because socialists in Paris know how to think.
Posted by: Conifer at July 6, 2010 1:58 PM
Yeah I'm with Conifer. Smart planning practice would be to put in as much parking as possible and simultaneously make transportation as good as possible. Since the latter is clearly not happening anytime soon in SF, I'm supportive of the former. The day that transportation in this city is as good as it is in NYC, London, Paris, or even small town America, I'll support the removal of parking. I guess until then, I'll be driving my car to the suburbs to shop.
Posted by: xyz at July 6, 2010 3:16 PM
have you ever tried driving in Paris? It's pretty miserable.
More parking leads to more driving, which leads to more traffic.
Posted by: lyqwyd at July 6, 2010 4:55 PM
oh, and if you want to use Paris as an example to strive for (and I have no problem with that) then you should know that Paris has about 3 times the population density of San Francisco.
So I'm fine with more parking if you are fine with tripling the density of SF.
Posted by: lyqwyd at July 6, 2010 5:01 PM
More parking leads to more people coming to buy stuff at stores in SF which leads to more tax revenues. San Francisco is surrounded by places where people own cars and drive. Removing parking in SF will not cause them to stop driving. It will either lead to more congestion as those people look for parking, or they may just go elsewhere to buy things. Neither outcome will be good for our city.
Posted by: xyz at July 6, 2010 6:28 PM
"More parking leads to more people coming to buy stuff ..."
Perhaps though we should balance this with the negative effects, mainly increased congestion on Market and Mission.
"Removing parking in SF will not cause them to stop driving."
It isn't that black and white. There will always be parking in SF, the questions are "how many spots, what cost, and where ?". I don't know about you, but the availability and cost of parking does affect my choice of how to arrive. It doesn't however affect my choice to shop there.
"Removing parking in SF will not cause them to stop driving. It will either lead to more congestion as those people look for parking ..."
Actually adding parking will lead to congestion. See my comments above. We can adapt to conditions and carry on quite comfortably.
And here I'll add perhaps the most far reaching (yet still nearby) comparison to SF on SS (fergit Paris !). Feel free to moot it (won't be hard) for its radical differences : Quite a while ago Yosemite Valley decided to restrict automobile traffic. People complained about having to park outside and take a shuttle in. Yet Yosemite's popularity continues to rise.
Yeah, it was great back in the day when you could drive into the valley, pull over to the side of the road and set up camp from your tailgate. Then Yosemite corralled campers off of the roadside and into drive-in campsites. It was still great. And now day trippers are asked to leave their cars outside of the valley. Still a fantastic, wildly popular place. These restrictions on car use weren't intended to keep people away, just the opposite. The park's management found a way to accommodate an increasing number of visitors while maintaining the quality of the experience.
This little stretch of Market might not be the most popular part of SF today though this little nugget is right in the middle of it all, easily reachable no matter how you want to arrive. We risk limiting its potential by creating bigboxmallanywhere.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at July 6, 2010 9:10 PM
more traffic means less people coming to buy stuff, so at best it's breakeven. So I'll take less parking and less traffic and the same number of shoppers.
In case you haven't noticed, the Bloomingdales & Nordstrom shopping malls are doing just fine with very limited parking.
In fact, if your argument had any truth behind it, shopping would have long ago died out in SF as most other areas have loads of free parking. And yet the exact opposite is true: we have the most shopping, the most restaurants, the most cultural institutions of the region, perhaps the west coast. All this with limited and expensive parking. So perhaps parking isn't the number 1 determination of business viability.
Posted by: lyqwyd at July 6, 2010 9:37 PM
Approved! With parking! Supported by the unions, the neighborhood and pretty much everyone else except livable city and the bike coalition.
This will provide much needed tax revenue and union jobs for our city during a tough economic time. Only the progressives would fight against that in the name of "bike safety" and "traffic congestion"
Posted by: xyz at July 9, 2010 6:30 AM