350 Mission Rendering
San Francisco’s new Board of Supervisors will hear and vote on the appeals against certifying the Environmental Impact Reports (EIR’s) for two big developments in San Francisco this afternoon, first the proposed 350-foot tower at 350 Mission and then the proposed redevelopment of Parkmerced.
Parkmerced Proposed Garden
The EIR’s for both projects were passed by San Francisco’s Planning Commission prior to the election of the four newest members of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.
San Francisco Board of Supervisors Agenda: 3/29/11 [sfbos.org]
350 Feet At 350 Mission (And San Francisco’s Planning Commission) [SocketSite]
Parkmerced’s Proposed Urban Design, Open Space, And Sustainability [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Impact This

    Yes EIR analysis is important in a small scale city like SF but geeze can you imagine other city’s willing to kill for development right now???
    By the way speaking about impacts, hows about creating an “club impact report” related to the operations of night clubs in the City. Seems to me that there are quantum level impacts that the hip board of supervisors turns a blind eye to regarding the late night entertainment industry, the least of which is the average annual death of 5-10 kids killed related to late night entertainment. Heck the progressives are more concerned with Big Box retail then big box entertainment. Must be the entertainment industry lobby eh?? Hear that California Music and Culture Association (was called the SF Late Night Entertainment Coalition until their founder began taking heat for conflict of interest). Hear that Mark Leno …how much in campaign contributions did you get from them? Same to you progressive SF Board members.

  2. Posted by shza

    Who let in the cranks from the sfgate commentariat?

  3. Posted by stucco-sux

    Anything like that picture of Park Merced only ever existed and only ever will exist in the mind of Wavy Gravy.
    Its an insult to our intelligence.

  4. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    Even though I am highly interested in this project because I support walkable urbanism and the extreme green measures the developer plans to include, I haven’t been following it and don’t get why it was appealed except perhaps out of “I got mine”-ism on the part of the current residents.
    I realize that the incumbent residents like their town homes, but the reality is that San Francisco has to increase density if it is to grow while keeping some semblance of reasonably affordable housing. Is the objection really that people currently living there don’t want to move and want to keep out newcomers like the worst stereotypical NIMBYs in the ‘burbs?

  5. Posted by Mole Man

    350 Mission is a standard office building downtown, so that should not be any problem. Parkmerced is so big that it can have a huge impact. The redevelopment plan appears to be a sincere attempt to do the right thing, but reviewing it brings up many issues that could have big impacts. Hopefully both will pass.
    As far as night life goes, that is an ongoing struggle. Because of regulation it is very hard to start clubs of any kind and also tricky to keep them going. Various critics and enforcers were shutting down venues in ways that were reshaping the City negatively which is what led to the political moves to support night life. The name is not important, what counts is letting people party if they want to. This is America, after all. Many of the loudest complainers are people who should have known better than to reside near party spots.

  6. Posted by Dubocian

    For those wondering, the Park Merced issues were ultimately punted to a closed session hearing on May 24. So we’ll have to wait another couple of months to see how this one turns out.

  7. Posted by Delancey

    Impact This —
    Your comment wouldn’t have anything to do with the attempt of an underwater condo-owner to shut down Slim’s, would it?
    http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/2011/03/slims_noise_complaints_an_open.php

  8. Posted by Fishchum

    What a miserable, self-entitled bitch that woman Geunot seems to be. NIMBY doesn’t even begin to describe her.

  9. Posted by A.T.

    I do not have much sympathy for this Geunot woman – she knew there were nightclubs there before she moved in.
    But her position is not frivolous. This is what happens when you permit lots of housing to be built in areas that previously were used for other purposes. There is a long history of housing moving into former farmland, and then the new residents sue old-time pig/cattle/chicken farmers under nuisance laws for the stench. And the residents win because such farming is no longer appropriate in a now-residential area. I would be interested in finding out if she is the only neighbor who really complains – i.e. noise is not a significant problem and she is just a gadfly pain-in-the-neck – or if others have complained. Things change, and you don’t get immunity just because you were thee first.

  10. Posted by sfrenegade

    Thanks for the article, Delancey. That Guenot woman is a real piece of work. Even NIMBYs are probably embarrassed by how ridiculous she is. It’s one thing to engage in her jihad against a non-conforming club, but it sounds like Slim’s complies with the law and has done everything it can to go beyond complying with the law and be a good neighbor. I can’t help but express schadenfreude at her condo being underwater — of all the underwater properties we’ve heard about on SocketSite, Guenot seems to be one of the rare people who truly deserves it.

  11. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Slim’s soundproofing is excellent. Anybody who ever belatedly tried to get a ticket to an unannounced show can attest to that.

  12. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    her next move will be to complain about the noise crowds outside of Slim’s generate … it’s not the noise she cares about, it’s her equity.

  13. Posted by R

    Her equity, with or without Slim’s, is in a bad way. She bought her place on an alley at 11th and Folsom for almost $850sf. Ouch, that’s got to hurt.
    I’d probably be grumpy too.

  14. Posted by stucco-sux

    The way this woman has been treated by a few local bloggers and their punky little commenters is disgusting. She’s not my type, but she gained my sympathy because of the way she was treated.
    It totally turned me off to those blogs as well. I hope she sues for online bullying and wins.

  15. Posted by sfrenegade

    Lots of people try to blame their own bad decisions on someone else because they refuse to own them. It looks like Guenot is doing the same with her underwater condo.

  16. Posted by Louis

    350 mission will probably be approved. interesting to note this developer opted OUT OF the planning departments plan for 800 height tower for this site. Thats economic reality– It might be musical chairs to see who is the next single CBD office tower for the next cycle.
    Parc Merced probably will not be approved- its too large and engages too may debatable environmental issues. It not their “fault” – i just dont think the SF system will allow very large, bold visiosn , whatever, anymore. Its from Robert Moses’ time. for better of worse.
    PS – I think SOM / Craig Hartman is the architect for each. Which is about as good quality design as any typical developer project will ever get.

  17. Posted by sfrenegade

    “I hope she sues for online bullying and wins.”
    What was said in SFWeekly that wasn’t true?

  18. Posted by Joe

    Park merced will be approved. All that is being appealed is the certification of the EIR and everything I have seen so far is a bogus reason for appealing the EIR.
    For example – rent control. Local rent control requirements have no business being discussed in a state legal document.

  19. Posted by Jim

    Park Merced as it exists today (1) has nothing to do with SF; it landed here from Mars, or at least from LA; It does not relate to the SF grid; it is suburban and auto oriented; it is a kitsch 1950 world unto itself; (2) the townhouses are cheap mold-filled crap that was thrown up in a hurry and never intended to last this long; (3) the site plan is confusing; (4) it is totally energy and water inefficient; (5) perhaps the biggest land use is the asphalt clothes drying yards!
    This plan would NEVER be allowed to be built today, it is so awful. So lets let the NIMBYs landmark it and keep it forever.

Add a Comment

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