942 Mission Street: Model

While the previously approved 1960-1998 Market project seeks a couple of amendments from San Francisco’s Planning Commission tomorrow, the proposed development at 942 Mission (a 152-foot-tall, 15-story building containing approximately 3,240 square feet of ground-floor retail space and 72,000 square feet of hotel space including 172 hotel rooms) seeks to overcome an appeal and win approval (the Planning Department recommends approving the project) along with the proposed developments at 2001 Market (think Whole Foods) and 2652 Harrison.

6 thoughts on “SF’s Planning Commission Poised To End The Year With A Bang”
  1. Mission and 5th, close to the InterContinental.
    I’ve always advocated staying east of 4th, but with the additions of Moscone West and the InterContinental maybe things are looking up on 5th.
    Now they just need to develop the old mint.

  2. That site is west of 5th, just pass the Mint Alley and “Provident Loan” Building on the north side. On the north side of that site, it will be just across the alley from the big retail development proposed on Market Street on the site of the St. Francis theater and other blighted buildings. Good Luck to both projects.

  3. Well, consider me a little lost on this one.
    First, the item on the planning commission calendar [PDF], which the socketsite editor correctly summarized, is an appeal of a preliminary mitigated negative declaration. But the previous post, on 4 Jun 2009, linked to an “EIR Availability”, which is no longer on the planning web site. The planning department published the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration (PMND) on 3 June 2009.
    I’m no planning expert, but my understanding was that the whole reason that a developer wants an approved PMND in hand is that it allows the project to proceed without requiring the preparation of a costly EIR. So if they already had an EIR, and gave it to the planning department for a review, why is the commission considering an appeal of a preliminary mitigated negative declaration over a year later? Did the developer decide to “take back” the EIR after they belatedly figured out how much it would cost to complete and then decided to petition for a PMNC instead?
    Second, I laugh whenever a developer proposes a residential low or mid-rise building with no parking and the inevitable flames go up on socketsite from incumbent homeowners who don’t want more competition for available street parking spaces. After all, a buyer of a condo can always forgo a car, even if we all agree it isn’t quite as easy as it would be in Manhattan.
    But this place, 942 Mission, is a 5-story building including 172 hotel rooms. From the project description (afore-mentioned .pdf, pg. 2):

    The proposed building would include…72,000 square feet of hotel
    space on floors two through 15…and a building total of 87,265 sq. ft. The project sponsor would request a 50‐foot passenger loading space on Jessie Street. No off‐street parking or loading would be provided

    Emphasis added. What gives? Are visitors to the hotel going to decide to arrive solely via Zipcar or the airport shuttle? Muni?
    Lastly, I have to applaud socketsite for covering the planning commission. If you read C.W. Nevius’ column on this project today, you’d think it sailed through the planning department and was on it’s way to being built:

    In this city, the idea of new construction, particularly on the fringes of the Tenderloin, can be an invitation to hand-to-hand combat. In the 1980s, bitter development fights in the Tenderloin put strict limits on growth and stopped the building of new hotels dead.
    The idea was to preserve low-income housing for residents…The tired old rant that any development, anywhere, is a plot against true San Francisco values is shortsighted. Cities need to grow and build updated structures. That’s how they stay fresh and vital.
    But the ease with which 942 Mission St. passed may be a sign of progress.

    The reality is that the PMND was being appealed by the general manager of the nightclub across the street and the owners of The Chronicle Hotel at 936 Mission St. That might not be the normally high level of opposition that a project like this would engender, but it’s there, and they are not likely to just give up if the project’s PMND is upheld, since the project requires an exception to be granted (item 13b. on the commission calendar).

  4. Brahma, for most folks staying in downtown SF hotels, no parking is needed. They are flying in (for business, convention, or pleasure), and can easily take a taxi or BART from the airport. If they do need a car during their stay, they can easily rent one for the day.
    While many hotels provide parking, it is by no means needed at all hotels, and I’m guessing a hotel would still be very marketable without it.

Leave a Reply

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