Supes Move Toward Approving Trinity Plaza

by Randy Shaw, 2007-03-20

An aura of unreality pervaded the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee on Monday, March 19. Speaker after speaker praised builder Angelo Sangiacomo and the 1900 new rental units slated for 8th and Market Streets, with not a single person testifying against the project. Yet the project likely to be approved at the March 27 meeting of the full Board of Supervisors has changed little since it was approved by the Planning Commission and awaited a Board hearing last September. Why this six-month delay? It has much to do with development politics in San Francisco, where relationships with elected officials can become the deciding factor.

Sister Bernie Galvin of Religious Witness with Homeless People, Brook Turner of the landlord group the Coalition of Better Housing, Jim Salinas of Carpenters Local 22, several representatives of the Residential Builders Association, SOMCAN, Paul Hogarth of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Trinity Plaza Tenant leader Ken Werner and Yvonne Sangiacomo were among the diverse group of speakers that unanimously called for the prompt approval of the new Trinity Plaza Apartments at the March 19, 2007 Land Use Committee.

For anyone familiar with the tortured history of this project, the lovefest surrounding the project and its owner, Angelo Sangiacomo, was surreal. No development project in memory has had a harder time getting a Supervisors hearing date, or been subject to more manipulations of the committee calendar.

But at the hearing, all was forgotten if not forgiven. In fact, Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval expressed befuddlement at the many speakers testifying about the Board’s obstructionism in dealing with the project. He apparently forgot the seven months that passed since the Planning Commission overwhelmingly approved the project (and then had to re-approve it in January due to the Board’s unreasonable delay).

The Committee will now hold a hearing on March 26 to deal with an amendment that it could not approve yesterday. The full Board is then expected to approve the project, likely unanimously, on March 27.

Will the project be built? That will depend on Sangiacomo’s ability to obtain financing for the rent-controlled building. He has been unable to get such financing to date, but perhaps the Board’s approval will get some lender willing to loan him the $110 million he needs to start construction.

Committee Chair Sophie Maxwell, the cause of much of the project’s delay, was extremely gracious at the hearing and expressed support for the project. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who I had been told now supported Trinity, instead promoted an amendment to reduce the number of rent controlled units and replace them with units renting for 60% of area median.

McGoldrick acknowledges voting for the 360 rent –controlled units in a June 2005 Board Resolution, but now says he did not read what he voted on. THC's Hogarth used his testimony to explain to McGoldrick that the 60% of median figure was higher than any tenant at Trinity was paying through 2005, but McGoldrick remained undaunted and asked the City Attorney to draft an amendment for the March 26 meeting.

Since tenant groups would find a reduction in rent-controlled units at Trinity absolutely unacceptable, McGoldrick’s amendment is not likely to find much support.

Why do some projects gain quick approval, while others like Trinity do not despite receiving universal acclaim? The answer, not surprisingly, is politics.

Consider the following example: the market-rate condominium project under construction on Mission Street between the new Federal Building and Trinity Plaza. The developer, Alexis Wong, spends a lot of time hob-nobbing with Supervisors, and contributes to local campaigns.

Wong’s project includes no rental units, the minimum number of inclusionary units, no extra community benefits, and, most troubling, a five-story parking garage.

That’s right---a new five-story parking garage along a major transit corridor.

How did this monstrosity get approved? Well, it seems that Ms.Wong was running into financial problems with her project, and needed the garage to help bail her out financially.

So claiming financial hardship, she got her garage, and her project, quickly approved. Nobody on the Board of Supervisors raised concerns about pedestrian safety, or the city’s “Transit-First” policy. Nor did any Supervisor attempt to delay approval.

Example 2: in October 2006, while Trinity Plaza backers are still trying to get a hearing for the right to build rental housing, Lennar Corp. pulls out of its commitment to build 400 rental units at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. As Beyond Chron described last October the Lennar Corp., which builds nationally, was allowed by the Redevelopment Agency to avoid building rental housing because it claimed a tough rental market. Supervisor Maxwell defended the move saying “I think it is appropriate, the rental market is very, very difficult.”

This allegedly “very difficult” rental market was described two days later in the Chronicle as “red hot.” How did Lennar get away with escaping its commitment to build desperately needed rental housing in Hunters Point?

Political connections. Lennar is so deeply embedded in the Democratic Party that it is the developer of choice for aspiring politicians. Few developers have pockets deeper than Lennar’s, but Maxwell and the Redevelopment Agency still let them avoid building apartments at a major loss to the neighborhood and city.

Now lets compare these examples to Trinity.

Currently, Trinity Plaza has 450 surface parking spots. After the Board approved the basic framework of the Trinity Plaza Development Agreement in 2005, the Supervisors enacted new parking regulations that eliminated new commercial parking for any new development at the site. Although the new Trinity Plaza reduces surface parking on the site to 250 spots, despite adding 60,000 square feet of commercial space, Trinity was accused of circumventing the new law by Supervisors who sat quietly while a five-story parking garage was approved next door.

The same Supervisors who looked the other way for Alexis Wong’s market-rate condo project took out their magnifying glasses to find fault with the largest rental housing project proposed in San Francisco in over fifty years. And Supervisor Maxwell was insisting until the last minute that Trinity’s rent-controlled units should be subject to vacancy control, while Lennar was free to avoid even building rental housing.

Unlike Wong, Angelo Sangiacomo is not a real touchy-feely kind of person. Unlike both Wong and Lennar Corp, he almost never talks to Supervisors.

Sangiacomo was penalized for his wealth, as some Supervisors felt he could weather any financial burden and still proceed with the project. But Lennar’s extremely deep pockets did not hinder its escape from building rental housing.

Supervisor Chris Daly deserves credit for getting the Land Use Committee to finally hear Trinity, and for securing the necessary votes. But there is something wrong when a rental housing project in Mid-Market is forced to overcome obstacles that are waived or ignored for luxury condo developers and national building corporations.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org