Residents split over large Park Merced redevelopment plan as commission hears design and open‑space proposals
Loading...
Summary
The San Francisco Planning Commission received extensive public comment and an architect presentation on Park Merced’s proposed mixed‑use redevelopment, which would replace large parts of the existing complex with a finer‑grained street grid, new parks, and denser housing. Supporters praise sustainability and open space; many long‑time residents warn of displacement and urge slower, less‑destructive options.
The San Francisco Planning Commission held a lengthy informational session on a proposed, large‑scale redevelopment of Park Merced that would convert much of the 152‑acre site to a higher‑density, mixed‑use neighborhood with new streets, parks and transit connections. Planners and the project architects described a design that cuts existing oversized blocks into smaller, walkable streets; adds six neighborhood commons and a larger stream corridor with stormwater treatment; and concentrates higher densities near proposed transit stops.
The plan’s proponents said the proposal is designed to knit Park Merced into surrounding neighborhoods and to provide amenities the area lacks. “We’ve introduced a series of new north‑south, shared public ways and smaller east‑west paseos to create a much finer grain,” Leo Chow of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill said in the presentation. Planners also emphasized sustainability features including on‑site stormwater treatment, an organic community farm and an open‑space network intended to improve habitat and help recharge Lake Merced.
Supporters including the planning department, the project team and civic groups told the commission the project would create housing close to transit and new public open space. “This provides an opportunity to bring transportation‑oriented development to the West Side and create new parks and community programs,” said a planning department presenter.
But dozens of current residents and neighborhood organizations urged the commission to slow the effort or require major revisions. Long‑time Park Merced residents said the plan does not protect existing gardens, courtyards and affordable homes. “Park Merced is one of the few economically and socially diverse neighborhoods in the city,” said resident Lynn Gavin, urging that the community not be destroyed. Speakers also warned about potential displacement, higher utility and HOA costs, and uncertainty about who would shoulder long‑term maintenance and recovery costs after storms or earthquakes.
Several speakers asked for more precise phasing and finance details. Commissioners pressed staff and the project team to clarify the implementation sequence, including how and when transit improvements (a proposed Muni alignment and neighborhood shuttle) would be delivered, and what protections would apply for tenants whose homes are proposed for demolition. Planning staff said the draft development agreement and design standards include provisions for a master homeowners association responsible for long‑term maintenance of many public‑serving areas, and that the city would retain enforceable review rights.
The commission took public testimony at length and asked staff for follow‑up on seismic risk, parking and transit assumptions, a clearer phasing schedule, and the legal and financial mechanics of the proposed master HOA and maintenance obligations. Commissioners and residents agreed the project raises major tradeoffs — between building new housing and jobs, and preserving the existing social fabric — and asked the department to return with more detailed analyses before the commission acts on implementation steps.
