There is nothing unusual in San Francisco about neighbors protesting a proposed development project. But when the neighbor is a wealthy condo developer, whose company is building a controversial 24 story condo tower with five floors of parking, one would think they would think twice before trying to stop an adjacent project with 34% affordable units that is almost universally seen as a boon to the Mid-Market neighborhood. But Alexis Wong and her AGI Capital Group, who have an approved project at 1160 Mission, clearly have a different vision for the Mid-Market area than do the backers of the rental housing project slated for the adjacent Trinity Plaza. It’s a choice between a neighborhood dominated by upscale condos and parking garages or one centered by 1900 new rental units and pedestrian-friendly retail spaces—and the Planning Commission will soon decide.
The AGI Capital Group has filed five pages of challenges to the draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared by the City for the 1900 unit rebuild of the Trinity Plaza Apartments. The primary goal of the challenges is to create a smaller project, one that would necessarily have far fewer affordable housing units than currently projected for the site.
AGI is building a condo tower between the new Federal Building and Trinity Plaza that, unbelievably, includes more than twice as many parking spots as housing units. The project contains five stories of parking, which is two stories higher than would be allowed under proposed new zoning restrictions for the area and under the parking demands for downtown pushed by Mayor Newsom.
On March 21, land use attorney G. Scott Emblidge wrote a letter to the Planning Department on AGI’s behalf raising a host of concerns about the Trinity Project.
AGI’s chief concerns are the EIR’s alleged failure to analyze a smaller project, its lack of analysis of a possible mixed-used project, and its alleged failure to recognize that the Trinity rebuild would “adversely impact” the neighborhood’s character.
This last argument exposes AGI’s real agenda in trying to derail the new Trinity Plaza.
On the AGI website, the company claims:
Since 1998, AGI Capital has led a number of market trends in San Francisco, including the Mid-Market District, which is undergoing extensive planning at present under the auspices of the Redevelopment Agency.
AGI’s vision for Mid-Market, reflected in its 1160 Mission project, is of an elite neighborhood of upscale condos and parking garages. Trinity Plaza, in contrast, will bring over 2000 tenants to the area, with parking at the site consistent with the .75 to one ratio recently passed by the Board of Supervisors.
The new Trinity Plaza will also have ample ground floor retail and a pedestrian mall, both of which will attract the non-wealthy to the area. Trinity will not allow the area to become the wealthy enclave that AGI hoped for, so it must be scaled back—or include upscale offices rather than only housing— to minimize this potential “adverse impact” on AGI’s bottom line
Remarkably, AGI’s attorneys cite a variety of ways that the Trinity Project allegedly violates existing land use laws without noting that its own parking garage—which allegedly makes the project economically viable—would not be permitted under the proposed Mid-Market Special Use District that AGI claims on its website to support.
AGI knows that it cannot defeat Trinity at either the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, but delaying the project could achieve their goal. While Sangiacomo is in good health, he is 81 years old. Should his health fail before the project begins, the rebuild could be stalled indefinitely or scaled back.
The San Francisco Planning Department must respond in writing to AGI’s comments on the EIR, and it remains unclear whether the Department will feel obligated to undertake substantial new analyses in order to protect itself against a likely court challenge from AGI. If so, this could potentially mean a 4-6 month delay for a project that most observers agree will rejuvenate the Mid-Market area.
Although AGI’s plans for a massive parking structure would only cause more traffic for adjacent properties, Trinity Plaza owner Angelo Sangiacomo did not ask for any modifications to either the parking or the residential portion of the project. Sangiacomo figured that they were free to build what they wanted on their property, just as he expected the freedom to build on his property.
Given AGI’s problems obtaining financing for their project, and its outrageous parking component, Sangiacomo’s opposition might easily have killed the proposal at the Planning Commission. He could have even used his leverage to cut a deal with AIG project for a mutual non-opposition agreement.
But Sangiacomo stayed on the sidelines, and last week learned just how much his wealthy neighbor appreciated this act.
Alexis Wong and AIG have other projects planned in San Francisco, and may regret the day they picked a fight with Angelo Sangiacomo and the many backers of the new Trinity Plaza.
Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org
