From the Chronicle last week:

On Jan. 6, as part of a major rezoning effort, the board approved legislation limiting building heights on Mission Street to 65 feet. Prior to the vote, there had been discussions about giving an exception to [Gus Murad’s New Mission Theater project] because it had been under city review before the zoning plan was finalized and would add needed housing and other community facilities to the neighborhood.

The board declined to make the exception, but a city planner who wrote the final legislation inadvertently inserted the 85 foot height for the Murad property. The board later approved another ordinance restoring the 65 foot limit. Newsom then vetoed that legislation, placing the Murad property back at the accidental 85-foot height.

Supervisor Chris Daly said at the Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday that Newsom’s actions gave the appearance of, “impropriety and malfeasance.”

From the Mayor’s new “Corrections Page” this week:

The New Mission Theater site has been proposed for development of a mixed-use project that includes heights up to 85 feet along Mission Street. This project has been under review at the Planning Department since July 2005. The proposed development would, among other benefits, rehabilitate, restore and reactivate the long dormant New Mission Theater, a San Francisco landmark, provide neighborhood-serving child care services, reactivate the theater use, and increase the City’s housing supply by constructing market-rate and below market-rate units on one of the City’s most transit-intensive streets.

The height reduction proposed by this ordinance is inconsistent with the Planning Department’s and Commission’s original recommendation for the site, the General Plan policy of encouraging preservation of historically significant buildings, encouraging housing along major transit corridors and revitalizing underutilized properties along key neighborhood commercial corridors. Mayor Newsom’s staff, working with Supervisor Bevan Dufty’s office, made good faith efforts to amend this ordinance to address several of the policy concerns raised by members of the Board, including adding additional language to clarify the preservation requirements for the theater. These attempts at compromise were not accepted.

Based on all of the above factors, the Mayor determined that a veto of this ordinance is in the best interests of the City.

We won’t argue with the decision, but perhaps “Positions Page” might be more correct.
Goof gives Newsom donor 20 more feet [SFGate]
New Mission to have new use [examiner.com]
CORRECTION: New Mission Theater articles by Robert Selna [SFMayor]

25 thoughts on “Two Sides To The New Mission Theater Zoning “Error” Story”
  1. Robert Selna is a Chris Daly tool. The Mayor’s office release is the truth, and Selna’s report is just another one of his thinly veiled pro-Daly hit pieces.

  2. There is no reason this development should be looked upon unfavorably. Currently the theatre is shuttered and the Value Giant component is an eyesore. It should not be so hard to get things done in San Francisco. The city is so good at discouraging anyone who wants to build and improve in this city! Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

  3. If 20 feet is what all the fuss is about the board needs to find much more important things to squak about with the mayor. I mean really. Move on.

  4. I do not mean to offend but I’m sorry Missionary, you could not be more wrong regarding the “truth” from the Mayor’s office. I do not know Selna or his political leanings, but in this matter I can confirm that the Chron story is 100% correct. The Planning Department’s original proposal was in fact not 85′ – that was specifically inserted at the 11th hour and incorporated into the final proposal because of intense pressure from the developer and the Mayor’s office.
    If anything the Chron story does not go far enough in revealing connections between Murad, certain highly ranked individuals at the Planning Department, and the Mayor’s office. Do not misunderstand, I am not saying this is a case of blatant corruption, but personal connections were used to influence the outcome of this decision, and the mistake was very much taken advantage of by the Mayor’s office (just like it would have been by the Supes if a mistake was made in their favor).
    In other words, politics pure and simple, lol.

  5. Whatever!
    I live near the New Mission Theatre, and Murad should be rewarded for restoring a beautiful historic landmark. If it takes an extra two stories to make the project commercially viable, I’ll take more height to make it work; even if the process has to be fudged through a bureaucratic morass called the Planning Department, under error or impropriety. Wake up, this is nothing new.
    The broader question is why this city is encouraging delapidation while renters and homeowners are paying top dollar to live here. The system is broken, and the bureaucracy is the problem.

  6. jake, it is good to have a sophisticated observer of zoning and politics.
    question, is a simple version of this dispute – daly and newsom really, really dont like each other and the feud will never end.
    other question is — how does this guy, murad, get such traction with the mayors office, as you suggest, which has reportedly been very standoffish and immune to developers pleas, and even to land use issues in general?

  7. Yes, exactly. Are these exceptions available to every citizen and developer?
    I’m on the fence about this one, though. I think SF needs density, but I don’t like special relationships.

  8. Well, you asked, so I’ll answer: Just a few highlights from the Daly era: Chris’ #1 tool, his former partner at MAC, actually wrote letters to landowners mired in Daly/MAC sponsored anti-development wrangles (you know, the kind that ended up tossing the Armory over to kink.com, chasing out Charles Phan, replying to an offer of youth programs by the owner of Mission cliffs with the phrase: “Mexicans don’t climb rocks,” etc. etc.). The letter read in part that if the property owner would just agree to MAC & Daly’s terms for selling their property to MAC controlled non-profits, they would ensure the project was approved, because quote: only MAC has the political juice to accomplish that. End quote.
    MAC & Daly also created an enemies list of their not-favored land owners, and provided the Planning Department with a map of the mission showing where these people owned property. Along with the map, was suggested zoning (restrictive, limited use) for these parcels and a promise of support for Planning if their requests were accepted. Want more? Just ask.
    Mr. Selna never reported any of this, but Matt Smith at the Weekly did, in detail.
    [Editor’s Note: We added a few paragraph breaks for readability.]

  9. Missionary is spot on. MAC is one corrupt, agressive and f*cked up org. Just because it’s a non profit dedicated to helping brown people, does not mean it is not a power seeking org that uses political connections to harass private property owners (and that is a quote from a “brown person” permit expeditor I use.).
    They also tried hard to derail the mixed use development at the corner of mission and cesear Chavez. But an overwhelming outcry from so mnay neighbors on the area convinced the planning commission that an empty parking lot was less desireable at a major intersection.

  10. Here is a best-of from Matt Smith’s coverage of corruption by Daly and his cronies in the Mission. Look em up in the Weekly Archive and be horrified by what you read.
    Doublespeak With Forked Tongue
– When dealing with Chris Daly and his political objectives, it’s best to leave reality behind
    Published: May 3, 2006


    The Daly Show
– Why a supervisor needs to feel some love and back off a counterproductive assault on a nonprofit housing agency
    Published: February 23, 2005


    Development Pressure
– A look at ethics questions raised by the political activism of the Mission Housing Development Corp
    Published: August 18, 2004


    Progressive Failure
– Why San Francisco supervisors who call themselves progressives should get the boot in November
    Published: August 4, 2004

  11. Why is there a Walgreen’s being built at Cesar Chavez and Mission, and there is one about 2 or 3 blocks away on Mission and 25th (or 26th)? This should be why the battles are waged, not 2 stories. No chains allowed in the Mission. Except for Walgreen’s Sketchers McDonald’s Bank of American Wells Fargo Washington Mutual Popeye’s Walgreen’s Walgreen’s Walgreen’s and Walgreen’s.

  12. sf, you raise one of the most topsy-turvy aspects of SF political culture. Everyone I know that supported the new development at Mission & CC was quietly mortified at the Walgreens. But we supported the developer’s plans, and so had to let it slide. Had we said one peep about the Walgreens the absolutists would have jumped all over us. There is no reational discussion because you end up going for the lesser of evils, instead of a refined, well thought out outcome. Its such a waste of community energy these endless battles just to get ANYTHING done…

  13. Louis,
    Very generally speaking, I don’t think such activity has much to do with the personalities involved. Be it Daly, Newsom, (MAC, Matt Smith, the Guardian or OSHER for that matter) there are always people and groups representing specific viewpoints that are at odds with each other and will do whatever they can to move their agenda forward.
    For example, MAC did indeed provide a map to the Planning Department regarding their preferred alternative while invoking the backing of the Board; large property owners in the Mission also provided a map invoking the backing of the Mayor. Matt Smith did report some facts regarding the rezoning process in the Eastern Neighborhoods; his facts as reported however are incorrect enough to yield erroneous (and sometimes comically conspiratorial) results.
    Having said that, I do think that one of the greatest assets Newsom possesses is his rivalry with Daly: he has been able to cast himself as the relative angel to Daly’s devil, so much so that at times I imagine a cartoon strip featuring them as young boys at play: Daly’s the brat and Newsom’s mamma’s favorite. The cat runs by, breaks a vase, and Newsom immediately proclaims, “Daly did it.”
    At this stage, I think nothing pains Daly more than the realization that the Mayors machine is able to very effectively obfuscate some legitimate shortcomings in his administration by highlighting what Daly did or did not do, but Daly has no one to blame but himself for his own obstinate and unprofessional behavior. But Newsom, although more polished, operates at the same relatively juvenile level and leaves the day-to-day running of the city to his legions of minions, compromising the City’s ability to move past the tired cliché’s of left and right.
    And in terms of the developers influence with the Mayor’s office, I would largely chalk it up to longtime personal connections with some of the more powerful bureaucrats in the City, as well as the support that the developer has provided the current administration and his longtime behind the scenes political maneuverings. Again, I do not believe that the Planning Department “goof” was anything but that, but I am certain that once the mistake was revealed it was very much taken advantage of.

  14. So let me get this straight: it is bad when Daly uses spot zoning and the planning commission to support his political allies because that is corruption but good when Newsom does it because that is just him trying to improve The City.
    You guys crack me up.

  15. Who cares? Thats’s city politics.
    Big picture, it’s funny anybody tries to block a decrepit old movie theater from getting turned BACK INTO A MOVIE THEATER PLUS HOUSING.
    Sorry. Daly is the worst. The guy has wrought an absolute blight on this city, period. He lives in section 8 housing on 6 figures. He is a shameless piece of crud.

  16. Sorry anonn (if that is who you really are) you just lost all credibility. Daly lives in Section 8 housing? Spreading falsehoods does not make anyone more likely to believe you in the future.
    Daly has enough valid things about him to complain about, why just make things up?

  17. Daly doesn’t live in section 8 housing, he bought a BMR unit from the MOH a few months before voting with the board to raise their pay and change their status to full time. Corrupt? Nah, it’s just something like the type of stuff that LMRiM is always encouraging us to do.

  18. Agreed that Daly did nothing illegal. The problem is his whole m.o. is to shout a holier-than-thou stance as to anyone who disagrees with him about anything, yet he is as hypocritical and unethical as anyone in office in SF.
    The irony as to this particular issue is that what he paid for his BMR is now not really that far above market value . . .

  19. Nah, it’s just something like the type of stuff that LMRiM is always encouraging us to do.
    You have to. That is what the system requires.
    As a point of reference directly relevant toour discussion, regarding social/political mores and housing, Charlie Rangel, a Democrat member of the House from New York City, maintains four well below market rent-stabilized apartments in NYC:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html
    Rep. Rangel, Democrat from NY, also failed to pay his taxes on rental income received from a holiday home in the Carribean (and which no one can seem to figure out how he obtained – he certainly didn’t buy it with his own money):
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/09102008/news/regionalnews/rangels_spanish_excuse_128444.htm
    Of course, none of that stopped Rep. Rangel from acting as had of the Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for writing the tax code!
    Of course, we won’t even get into Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner’s issues (as head of Treasury, the IRS reports to him in the chain of command).
    People voting for these clowns, and trying to claim some air of moral superiority, are simply suckers. Whatever I advocate, it is always within the strict letter of the law, which is something that the elected politicians cannot say. And I am open about it, rather than trying to enjoy the benefits secretly.
    Don’t even get me started with our recently elected honors graduate of the Illinois Institute of Kleptocracy, and the benefits he’s received as a result of BMR- and “affordable housing”- type shenanigans:
    http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2008/12/rezkos-singingwhats-he-told-feds.html
    (That last article will of course be dismissed by the suckers. Take it with a grain of salt, of course – like anything on the internet or in print, but it’s pretty interesting nonetheless and well worth reading.)

  20. Not everyone who lives in the neighborhood was “mortified” about a Walgreen’s moving into Mission & Ceasar Chavez. Some of us will find it quite convenient and I can’t wait until it opens since it is on my way home from BART. The generalizations about what the neighborhood wants that are spouted here are often completely the opposite of what every person I know in the Mission actually wants, but I suppose that’s because the people I know are all property owners who hate MAC.

  21. What’s telling here is that the Daly camp (in these comments) doesn’t understand the difference between a land owner lobbying city government to build on THEIR land, and other threatening landowners and shaking them down because they want to take their land. One is called business. The other is called extortion. Daly for one know exactly how malevolent he is — he has said many time that the end in his mind justifies the means. As for Matt Smith, he’s an old timer, left wing like me, who knows the difference between well intentioned liberalism and fascism parading as liberalism, and like me he finds it very, very dangerous.

  22. The existing Walgreens in the Mission is at 23rd St. not 26th St. I don’t believe there is a large pharmacy in Bernal. Chains like Walgreens are pretty good at picking locations, so my guess is that there will be plenty of business at this location — which means it is serving a need.
    As for the New Mission Theatre project — Selna’s piece appears to be accurate; Newsom is just putting a different spin on the same facts. I think Newsom’s veto looks slimy but I am happy to see Daly get smacked down. As long as something (anything) gets built there, I will be happy.

  23. Well not to be all anti-Walgreens or anything, but I just think if there was ever an example of chain retail spreading like wildfire here in SF, its them. They get a free pass because they are not “gentrifying?” But how many do we need? In the Castro, they took over the bar next door on Castro St. Then they took over another store on 18th, and are now expanding that space into yet another store on 18th. For a total of 4 spaces, now all Walgreens. I think a lot of people are a little Walgreened out. Not that I don’t love shopping there for animated Halloween door decor…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *