YesAnd Foundation, Neighborhoods United SF and four Marina residents filed a first amended complaint in federal court asking a judge to set aside San Francisco’s November 6 approval of the Marina Safeway redevelopment. The plaintiffs contend that the project does not qualify for fast-track approval under Assembly Bill 2011. They ask the court to stop the project from moving forward until it complies with applicable law and to require the City to follow California’s legal requirements in any further review.
The plaintiffs also ask the court to order PG&E to investigate and address hazardous waste at the site. The amended complaint alleges that the City approved the project without requiring an adequate investigation of contamination beneath the store. It also pursues a federal constitutional due-process claim, alleging that the City endangered the health and welfare of the project’s neighbors by approving the project without an adequate investigation of hazardous waste at the site or a plan to protect their health during construction or otherwise. Those neighbors include plaintiff Stephen Bayne, a disabled resident in his 80s who lives in a rent-controlled apartment in a building next to the site. The complaint alleges that the City gave no public notice and no opportunity for neighbors to be heard. It says the City’s Property Information Map still showed the project as “under review” on November 10, four days after final approval. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:26-cv-10316.
“The City deleted its own safeguard for contaminated sites the same day it put this project on the fast track, then approved digging 30 feet down before anyone tested the ground beneath the store. This project clearly does not qualify,” said Regina Callan, co-founder of YesAnd and a Marina resident. “That’s why we’re asking the court to set this approval aside. Families live right next door, and they deserve a process that follows the law. This is far from over.”
On August 11, neighborhood groups asked San Francisco Planning and Public Health to pause fast-track review of the Marina Safeway project. They cited Planning’s own Bulletin No. 9, which said that if a preliminary environmental assessment found hazardous materials, a project could not receive ministerial approval until City officials developed conditions to reduce those hazards to insignificant levels.
The project advanced to streamlined review on August 13. That very day, Planning deleted the language the neighborhood groups had cited just two days earlier, the amended complaint alleges. The plaintiffs say the City granted final approval on November 6 without imposing conditions that would reduce the site’s hazardous waste to insignificant levels.
“It’s deeply unnerving that a decision with such lasting consequences for San Francisco’s waterfront was made without a public hearing while the City’s own guidelines were a moving target,” said Erin Roach, president of the Marina Community Association and a Marina resident. “The people who live here will bear those consequences. We deserve a clear explanation of how and why Planning decided this project qualified for fast-track approval.”
According to the complaint, 40,212 square feet beneath the existing Safeway went unsampled. The area overlaps the footprint of a former PG&E steam electric plant and is where the developer plans to excavate about 30 feet below ground. Public Health asked why the testing plan called for no soil samples beneath the store. The developer’s consultant replied, “We know that there is a data gap.” The reason, the consultant said, was that Safeway, a co-venturer in the project, would not allow drilling while the store remained open.
The complaint quotes Karina Navarro, a unit chief at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, who told the City in December 2025 that certain petroleum impacts in soil were about ten times the residential screening level. She wrote, “I don’t expect this property to qualify for streamlined approval.”
“Approving a massive residential development on a known hazardous waste site without requiring anything close to an adequate environmental investigation is not just remarkable, it’s illegal,” noted Stuart Gross of Gross Klein PC, counsel for the plaintiffs. “It is disappointing that the city acted with such disregard. Thankfully, there are laws that compel the city to give the health and welfare of the project’s neighbors the consideration they deserve.”
The amended complaint also disputes the finding by San Francisco Planning, under Director Sarah Dennis Phillips, that the project meets AB 2011’s requirement that at least 75% of the site’s perimeter adjoin parcels developed with urban uses. In a July 20 letter, Planning explained that it counted the larger Marina Yacht Harbor parcel based on parking and Fort Mason based on parking, retail and residential uses. The plaintiffs argue that this interpretation sidesteps the law’s condition that a public park be surrounded by other urban uses to qualify as an urban use in its own right. They contend the site falls short of the 75% threshold.
“AB 2011 is a shortcut, and the Legislature put strict limits on who gets to take it,” said Joe Saveri, counsel for the plaintiffs. “This project fails two of them. The City counted national parkland and a yacht harbor as ‘urban’ largely because they have parking lots. By that logic, Yosemite is an urban use. And the City approved tearing down a building listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. Either one should have ended the fast-track process.”
Architect William Wurster designed the Marina Safeway, which became a model for later Safeway stores. The complaint alleges that the developer’s application said the project would not require demolishing a structure on a historic register and that the City repeated that position in its March 19 conditional eligibility notice. The plaintiffs cite a 2015 state inventory entry, code 2S2, as evidence that the Safeway is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. They argue that demolishing the store makes the project ineligible for fast-track approval.
The July revision increased the project from 790 to 848 apartments, while the number of income-restricted homes stayed at 86, about 10% of the total. The amended complaint alleges that the developer would likely earn more than $100 million in fees from the project.
“The project grew by 58 apartments and not one affordable was added. The public has a right to ask who this housing is for,” said Lori Brooke, a YesAnd board member and District 2 community advocate. “Four days after the City approved it, its own map still said ‘under review.’ The developer got a letter. The neighbors got nothing. Anyone who wants to see what’s actually coming should go to the app created just for this. It will stop you in your tracks.” See the Interactive Marina Safeway Impact Tool
“San Francisco needs housing that teachers, nurses and firefighters can afford, and this project doesn’t deliver it,” Callan said. “We’re neighbors up against private equity, Safeway and PG&E. It’s David and Goliath, and we will not be bullied or intimidated. The law is on our side. When a city gets it wrong, the price is paid for generations. Safeway, do better.”
Read the first amended complaint Case 4:26-cv-10316-AMO
About YesAnd! Foundation
YesAnd! Foundation is a San Francisco 501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports responsible housing development, independent environmental and public safety review, government accountability, and meaningful public participation. Learn more and sign the petition to Mayor Daniel Lurie at yesandca.org.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20261112041219/en/
Media gallery
