Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Commission keeps 85-foot recommendation for New Mission Theatre parcel amid intense debate
Loading...
Summary
After hours of testimony, the Planning Commission voted 4–3 to recommend disapproval of Supervisor Campos’ proposed map change to lower the Giant Value/New Mission Theatre parcel to 65 feet; commissioners cited prior commission findings favoring 85 feet and staff recommendations, while opponents pointed to a clerical error and Board intent to proceed at 65 feet as part of a broader Mission Street review.
The Planning Commission on April 23 took a contentious vote over Supervisor Campos’ proposed map amendment for 2550–2574 Mission Street (the former Giant Value/New Mission Theatre parcel). The ordinance submitted by the supervisor sought to correct what he and some community members described as a clerical error and restore the parcel to a 65‑foot height limit. Planning staff recommended disapproval of the change and asked commissioners to retain the 85‑foot limit the commission had previously endorsed in the Eastern Neighborhoods process.
The hearing drew packed public comment on both sides. Supporters of the 85‑foot limit argued taller limits are needed to finance restoration of the landmark New Mission Theatre, provide affordable housing units, create neighborhood child care and jobs, and spur economic activity. Mission nonprofits and merchants, as well as regional partners, testified that the project sponsor’s plan could fund theater restoration and neighborhood benefits. Project supporters included Mission Neighborhood Centers and Mission Housing Development Corporation.
Opponents, including neighborhood organizers and Supervisor Campos’ allies, said the Board of Supervisors had intended the parcel to be 65 feet after its revisions and that the published 85‑foot listing was a typographical error that should be corrected legislatively. They warned that approving higher heights on an ad hoc basis would undermine the board’s direction and the broader Mission‑Street study underway to balance affordable housing and business retention.
After extended debate about planning process, legislative authority and project economics, the commission voted 4–3 to disapprove the proposed ordinance changing the map (i.e., to oppose the supervisor’s request to lower the parcel to 65 feet). Commissioners in the majority cited the commission’s earlier findings and the department recommendation favoring 85 feet; a dissent cited the Board and mayoral actions and urged deference to the Board’s direction to revisit Mission Street heights through a broader study. The item will now proceed to the Board of Supervisors for final action; staff said they will continue the Mission Street study and incorporate community input and historic‑resource surveys into any future recommendations.
