Save the San Francisco Marina Neighborhood!

Is the San Francisco Planning Department out of control?

On September 16th, 2003, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors ordered that a large hotel in the Marina be scaled back to provide more light and air to its residential neighbors.  Three years later, the Planning Department has ignored the Board and approved a building that violates the Board's order.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick who authored the compromise that the Board passed has written to the Planning Department that they are incorrect.  Supervisor Angela Alioto has also objected to the Planning Department's decision and yet the Department refuses to rescind its approval.  See Supervisor McGoldrick's letter here: Page 1, Page 2

We are a group of neighbors that have banded together to fight this monstrosity.  We want the owners to build something new on the site.  The current hotel is an eyesore and a home to prostitution.  The open parking lot on the side allows criminals easy access to our property.  But we want a building that fits in with and respects the neighborhood.  We do not want a building that allows hotel guests to peer into our living room windows.

The sponsor's own attorney admitted that the building is incompatible with its residential neighbors. He told the Board of Supervisors that if we don't like it, we can move!  If you don't believe me, click here to view the video.

 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you want your living room window facing this?

Three years ago the owners of the Lombard Plaza Motel proposed a new 97 room 49,000 square foot hotel on a piece of land of less than 14,000 square feet.  Fitting such a large hotel on such a small piece of land required them to build walls four stories high all the way to the property lines and a garage three levels deep.  The sponsor claims this monolith will take only a few months to build, but we believe it will take up to 18 months.

On September 16th, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted 9-1 to require setbacks where the hotel adjoins neighboring residential property.  Two weeks later, the written findings requiring this were approved unanimously including these sections:

1. The fourth floor of the proposed project shall be further revised to delete from the rear portion of the fourth floor of the building an additional 20 feet, in addition to the feet previously removed from the rear portion of the fourth floor by the Planning Commission.

2. The third floor of the proposed project shall be further revised to delete from the rear portion of the third floor of the building an additional ten feet, in addition to the feet previously removed from the rear portion of the third floor by the Planning Commission.

The board didn't stop there.  It spelled out its reasons for its decision:

(1) The project at the size and intensity contemplated in the Commission approved design, will not provide a development that is necessary or desirable, or compatible with the neighborhood or the community.  ...  The Project, as approved, is not designed to fit well within the context and mitigate its larger size.  The rear building walls, which will be immediately adjacent to less intensive uses, including residential uses, will be at the property line on the ground floors, and would be set back by ten feet on the third floor and ten feet on the fourth floor in the Commission approved proposal.  Even with these setbacks on the third and fourth floors, the overall impact of the building in the rear will be to create a massive and bulky structure (with windows included) immediately adjacent to residential units, creating a loss of air and light as well as privacy.  The building as approved by the Commission will overwhelm and dominate the rear properties and residential units with the new construction.

The developer is trying to use the fact that the rear property line is uneven to find a loophole.  They contend they only have to remove space along part of the back property line.  Any ambiguity in the board's ruling was removed by the following paragraph.  It makes it very clear that the new setbacks are to be along ALL of the back property line.  (Bold added.)

FURTHER MOVED, That with the imposition of the additional conditions stated above, the board will be reducing the bulk of the Project by eliminating from the rear of the top two floors of the building that part of those two floors that are immediately adjacent to neighboring parcels that include residential units.  This will reduce the bulk of the building, and revise the building so that it will more closely resemble the bulk and mass of buildings to the rear of the Project.  This modification will reduce the bulk of the building, and revise the Project.  This modification to the Project will also reduce the loss of light and air, and privacy to the rear properties adjacent to the building.  ...

Here is a map of the block.  As you can see, the entire rear of the property touches parcels that have residential units.  

Figure 1 - Block Map

Below is the current side view of the northwest corner of the property where it touches the back of 1949 Chestnut Street:

Figure 2 - Northwest Corner of current hotel

Below is the proposed hotel rejected by the Board of Supervisors:

Figure 3 - Northwest Corner of Proposal Rejected by Supervisors

Below is the latest proposal by project sponsor:

Figure 4 - Latest Proposal by Project Sponsor

It's pretty hard to see the difference, isn't it?  This design simply doesn't meet the Board of Supervisor's requirements.  It actually adds windows in the back in direct violation of the board's instructions.  Below is a diagram of a building that would meet the requirements:

Figure 5

As you can see, there is little difference between the design the Board of Supervisors rejected (Figure 3) and the design the sponsor has now submitted (Figure 4).  The new design falls far short of what the Board of Supervisors required (Figure 5).

The original design submitted by the sponsors was so intrusive on neighboring properties that the sponsor's own lawyer admitted at the Board of Supervisor's hearing that it was incompatible with the neighborhood.  He said that if the neighbors didn't like it, they could move!  If you don't believe me, click here to view the video.

This statement was the turning point of the meeting.  After that supervisors Tony Hall and Geraldo Sandoval who had been firmly in the sponsor's corner started looking for a compromise.

Later that night, the sponsor's attorney tried to get the board to rescind its vote.  He claimed that the revisions would delete a rear staircase so the building could no longer meet fire requirements.  That stairway would only be significantly affected if their interpretation of the ruling was the same as ours!  If they believed that only a small amount of the building was to be removed as they now claim, they would have had to move the stairs only five feet.  (Under our interpretation, the stairs would have to be relocated by 20 feet.)

If you read the findings there is simply no doubt that the new proposal is unacceptable, so why has the Planning Department decided to come up with an "interpretation" that defies all logic?  We'd like to know too, but the Zoning Commissioner has so far refused to meet with us.

We have been told that the Zoning Commissioner has met with Walter Wong who represents the sponsors.  The project sponsor hired Walter Wong to get the project through.  Walter Wong is a politically powerful "expediter".  According to this story in the San Francisco Chronicle, Wong is a man who is often able to "sidestep city and public scrutiny".

Something is terribly wrong when a supposedly neutral government official will meet with one party in a dispute and not the other.

Please join us in protesting this mockery of the law and the Board's ruling.

The Latest Twist: With only minor changes, the latest plans receive almost immediate approval, permits are issued and then suspended!

Just when we thought this case couldn't get any stranger it did.

Latest Plans Receive One-Day Approval!

The day before the Labor Day weekend the developer filed new plans with the Planning Department.  They were approved the day after Labor Day!  They were then sent on for construction review where they were approved in a week!  There are thousands of other permit applicants who would love to get that kind of turnaround time!

We were told that since they are in construction review and no longer in the Planning Department we had no right to look at them.  The project sponsor was apparently in Europe and unreachable.  No one we've talked to at the Planning Department can explain how the plans were approved so quickly.

Click here to see the date the plans were received, and then click on "Show Site Permit Details" to see the approval.

Demolition Permits Issued - But then Suspended when newspapers and a supervisor start asking questions!

A demolition permit was then issued for the existing structure in direct violation of the Board of Supervisors instruction that no such permit would be issued until the new structure had passed by the Structural Advisory Committee peer review.

But then it gone even stranger.  A reporter for the San Francisco Daily started asking questions as did a representative of Angela Alioto-Pier's office.  At that point the demolition permit was suspended and we were given a chance to review the plans.  (See the letter of suspension here.  The permits can be seen here and here.)  We then had two weeks to see the plans.

We reviewed the latest plans and found there were only minor changes.

The Author of the Board Of Supervisors compromise makes it clear our interpretation is correct!

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick made the motion requiring setbacks in the rear of the hotel in the meeting of September 16th, 2003.  Supervisor McGoldrick has now written a letter making it clear to the Planning Department that the intent was to require setbacks along the entire rear of the property.  Supervisor Angela Alioto-Pier also contacted the Planning Department to object to their interpretation.

Yet, our attorney informs us that the Planning Department still contends that the plans meet the Board of Supervisors requirements!

Page 1 - Supervisor McGoldrick's Letter:
Page 2 - Supervisor McGoldrick's Letter:

Structural Review

Another requirement of the Board of Supervisors which the developer is trying to ignore is that the building be approved by Structural Advisory Committee peer review before permits are issued.

The findings state this requirement very clearly at the top of page 4:

7. No permits for work on the Project construction site shall be issued until the Project has received Structural Advisory Committee peer review.

According to our attorney, the developer is arguing that they are entitled to ignore this requirement.  The kind of underground walls needed depends on whether they get permission from the neighbors to put tie-backs under the neighbors property.

They contend that they should be allowed to ignore the Board's requirement because they don't know if they will get this permission. This argument is wrong on three counts.  The first  is that they have made no effort to negotiate with the neighbors in the past three years to get this permission. The second is that three years ago one of the neighbors gave them this permission, but the others flat out told them that they would not give permission.

The third reason this argument is invalid is because the Board of Supervisors was well aware the permission might not be granted when they made the requirement.  On the bottom of page 3 of the findings it states:

6. If permittees receive permission to enter the property of adjacent property owners during contruction of the Project ...

There is simply no wiggle room on this.  The Board of Supervisors ruling is clear.

The Current Status

The plans have been approved by the Planning Department despite violating the Board Of Supervisors ruling on the matter.  We are now waiting to see if the the Structural Advisory Committee peer review requirement will be waived.  We view this as a delay.  We believe the project is most likely still on track.  

Letter from Dr. Roger Kuhn, owner of the Marina Veterinary Hospital

Dr. Kuhn has owned the veterinary clinic next door to the proposed hotel for 35 years.  Please read his letter to the Planning Department.

Contact Us:

Write to us at savethemarina@yahoo.com.

Andy Fields: 307-9035