Photo: l0da_ralta (Marina archive, 2011)
A fight over 848 proposed homes at San Francisco’s Marina Safeway is testing how California’s housing fast-track rules fit with neighbors’ demands for a public hearing and a fuller review of contamination at the site.
The developers asked a federal judge last week to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the city’s approval, according to a November 3 HousingWire report. The motion is scheduled for a hearing on February 4, 2027. The dispute has not produced a new court ruling today.
The plan would replace the Safeway and its parking lot at 15 Marina Boulevard with 848 homes, including 86 for lower-income households. Towers of 22 and 18 stories would stand above a new ground-floor grocery store. The existing zoning allows a height of 40 feet, HousingWire reported.
A fast-track approval under challenge
San Francisco found the project eligible for streamlined approval under Assembly Bill 2011 on August 13. The California law allows qualifying housing projects on commercially zoned land to proceed through a rules-based review rather than public hearings and the usual environmental review.
YesAnd Foundation, Neighborhoods United SF and four residents filed their lawsuit on September 11. They say the project does not meet the law’s requirements and that the approval process denied them a chance to be heard. Their complaint says they support housing generally but accuses planners of approving a project that should not qualify for the shortcut.
The city, its planning and public health directors, and PG&E are named as defendants. Align Real Estate and Marina Property Owner LLC are identified as real parties in interest, according to HousingWire.
The federal claim
The lawsuit’s federal claim relies on Section 1983, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The plaintiffs argue that the lack of a public hearing violated their due process rights. Six other claims arise under California law.
The developers’ lawyers dispute that neighbors have a constitutional right to a hearing on someone else’s permit. Their dismissal motion cites a 2008 federal appeals court decision rejecting a similar argument in Spokane. They also argue that using a civil rights statute to block housing conflicts with California’s effort to address a shortage that harms low-income and minority households.
Those are the developers’ legal arguments, not findings by the judge in this case. Their brief contends that if the federal claim is dismissed, the remaining dispute belongs in state court.
Contamination is a separate point of dispute
The site previously housed a PG&E steam plant and sits next to a former coal-gas plant. Opponents argue that contamination must be fully assessed before the project can receive streamlined approval.
HousingWire reported that a state toxics official raised concerns with planners in December 2025, citing petroleum readings from 2023. The regional Water Board closed the steam plant petroleum cleanup in 2024, finding no unacceptable public health risks for the current commercial use. That finding was not an unconditional clearance for housing: the board said it could reconsider if the use changed.
The complaint says soil beneath the operating Safeway has not been sampled and describes a remaining data gap. The developers’ lawyers argue that AB 2011 requires cleanup before a certificate of occupancy is issued, rather than before the initial approval.
The February hearing will address the dismissal motion. For now, both the project’s eligibility for the fast track and the legal route for challenging it remain contested.
The archive photograph shows Marina District homes in October 2011, not the Safeway site or proposed towers. Photo by l0da_ralta, resized, CC BY 2.0.
JBizNews Desk | San Francisco
© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.
_(2).jpg){kind=link}