CFAH

CityPlace: Rendering

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny an appeal and certify CityPlace’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The one concession, a parking tax of 20 cents per car to pay for traffic safety improvements around the project.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by zzzzzzz

    Great news, but will the developer have trouble securing financing? How soon might construction begin?

  2. Posted by curmudgeon

    I would MUCH rather see Target here than in the Metreon.

  3. Posted by BDB

    Fantastic!
    20c per car is a reasonable tax! Almost like the newer garages on mission which have an added tax for departing between 4pm and 6pm.
    555 and 560 Mission both have a 10% tax for exiting in evening rush hour

  4. Posted by lyqwyd

    awesome!
    I am very glad to hear that this will be moving forward, the area has been in need of a project like this for a very long time, hopefully this will help get mid market going in the right direction.

  5. Posted by noearch

    More great news! A good step toward making that part of Market Street a great place to shop.
    Maybe there is hope for responsible development and growth in this city as well….including allowing parking for cars.

  6. Posted by scurvy

    How long before it turns into a porn store?

  7. Posted by givemeabreak

    wondering about that car tax and the added departure tax? Thats a new one. Not on topic but any info is appreciated.

  8. Posted by sfrenegade

    “Almost like the newer garages on mission which have an added tax for departing between 4pm and 6pm.
    555 and 560 Mission both have a 10% tax for exiting in evening rush hour”
    Is this a formal tax by the city? Or is it an extra surcharge added by the owners of the garage (e.g. because valet usage is heavy at that time)? Just wondering because plenty of garages make discounts if you enter/exit before or after a certain time.

  9. Posted by spitpalm

    Great news! Congrats SF!

  10. Posted by BDB

    I’m unsure as to whether or not it’s a formal City Tax.
    I thought it was because both of the buildings are on Mission street, even though 555 exits on Minna.

  11. Posted by BT

    The $0.20 parking “tax” is apparently a fee the developer agree to charge which is projected to create a pot of money, approximately $1.8M, which he will either donate to the city or use himself to create “improvements” for pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. What exactly that mean isn’t clear to me ( or probably him). I went to the meeting intending to speak in favor of the project, but its hearing was delayed by 3 hours while last minute negotiations were conducted–my understanding was with Sups. Chiu and Daly. I believe that’s where this issue sprang to life and the details are probably vague in everyone’s mind. It can’t be a formal tax because that would require formal action as an ordinance by the Sups and there has been none. I believe it’s simply a condition of denying the EIR appeal meaning the developer has agreed to collect it.

  12. Posted by BT

    PS: The ostensible reason for the need for pedestrian “mitigation” is that the only opponents of the project–and they insisted they didn’t oppose the project, only the parking/allegedly increased car traffic–were bicycle and pedestrian “advocates” (like Tom Radulovich). I didn’t stay for the delayed hearing so I don’t know if the $0.20 bought them off enough to cause them to drop their opposition, but it gave the Sups a way to say they had addressed their concerns.

  13. Posted by Turin

    Finally! That stretch of Market really needs this.
    BT – are you BTinSF from SSP? If so, hello from PG! Come back soon!

  14. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    It is hard to argue with unanimous. The impact mitigation fee is a good idea, it seems kind of small to me, but it was probably all they could get at the last minute.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles