On the waterfront - Page 2

Initiative would give voters a say on big waterfront projects that violate zoning standards

Sup. David Campos (left) was the first to sign campaign manager Jon Golinger's initiative petition.

As for getting the necessary signatures, Golinger said he isn't worried, noting that almost two years ago, he and other activists collected twice that many signatures — referendums require 10 percent of those voting in the last mayor's race, but initiatives need only 5 percent — to challenge just the 8 Washington project.

Here, the stakes are much higher, spanning the entire seven-mile waterfront.

"We want the voters to have a say when a project goes beyond the rules that are in place," said Sup. David Campos, the first elected official to endorse the measure and the first person to sign Golinger's petition.

Campos also connected the campaign to the eviction crises and tenant organizing now underway, including the first in a series of Neighborhood Tenants Conventions taking place that day, culminating in a Feb. 8 event adopting a platform. "That struggle is part of this struggle," Campos said. "We have to make sure we're working collectively."

The official proponent of the initiative is Becky Evans, who has been working on issues related to San Francisco's waterfront for more than 40 years. "I remember walking along the waterfront with Herb Caen back in the '70s," she said of the late San Francisco Chronicle columnist for whom the promenade on the Embarcadero is now named.

Evans is a longtime Sierra Club member who also served on the city's first Commission on the Environment, and she believes the shoreline is a critical intersection between the city's natural and built environments, one where the citizens have an active interest.

"I think the 8 Washington process — including the petition gathering and the vote — awoke a bunch of people to making a difference in what happens to the city," Evans told us, calling the waterfront a defining feature of San Francisco. "For many people, our skyline is the bay, not the buildings."



The initiative has few overt critics at this point. Both city and Port officials refused to comment on the measure, citing a City Attorney's Office memo advising against such electioneering. "I'm incredibly limited as to what I can say," the Port's Brad Benson told us.

And none of the spokespeople for the affected development projects wanted to say much. "We're taking a wait and see attitude," PJ Johnston, a spokesperson for the Warriors Arena, said when he finally responded to several Guardian inquiries.

"Right now, we're trying to understand it," said Staci Slaughter, the senior vice president of communications for the San Francisco Giants, whose proposal for Pier 48 and Seawall Lot 337 includes 3.7 million square feet of residential, commercial, parking, and retail, including the new Anchor Steam Brewery.

That project is just launching its environmental studies, which was the subject of a public scoping meeting on Jan. 13. Slaughter did tell us that "right now, the majority of the site doesn't have an established height limit," a reference to the fact that most of the site is zoned for open space with no buildings allowed.

Diane Oshima, associate director of waterfront planning at the Port, told us that during the adoption of the WLUP, "We did not broach the subject of changing any height limits." But the plan itself says that was because tall buildings weren't appropriate for the waterfront.

"Maintain existing building height and bulk limitations and encourage building designs that step down to the shoreline," is the plan's first design objective. Others include "Improve views of the working waterfront from all perspectives" and "Remove certain piers between Pier 35 and China Basin to create Open Water Basins and to improve Bay views."


This will ultimately be found illegal as it subverts state law by local law.
The Stewarts and Peskim overstepped their bounds on this one.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 6:29 am

Many of us in the Rincon Hill neighborhood supported the 8 Washington project and similarly oppose this new waterfront height initiative.

Will San Francisco become a world-class city with a world-class waterfront? It will if the city's Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors are allowed to continue to do their jobs -- jobs monitored by myriad citizens groups, neighborhood organizations, the business community, other elected officials, and media watchdogs.

Requiring voters to approve development projects at the ballot box is not an appropriate use of city elections and undermines our democratic institutions. If the electorate disagrees often enough with its elected officials, then it should vote them out. But until then our city representatives should be allowed to make decisions on our behalf.

Do not turn San Francisco into a mini-California stymied by voter-approved initiatives that come back to haunt us. Please do not sign the height limit initiative petition. If it does qualify for the ballot, please vote no.

Thank you.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 9:26 am

As clearly shown in the 8 Washington battle, developers and city officials frequently operate against public opinion. All this measure ensures is that people get a say before existing zoning laws are overturned.

It cracks me up when developers from the other side of the country and city officials who don't even live in San Francisco think they know what is best for a neighborhood even though they have hardly spent time there. City officials need to remember they work for us, and need to represent our interests - not their interests and not the interests of billionaire out of town developers.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 10:04 am

down Market Street and observing all the cranes building homes that many people cannot afford. The voters may oppose a specific project (and even then only when some NIMBY billionaire funds the campaign) but there is no question that the voters want to see thousands of new market-rate homes to ease the ceaseless demand for housing here.

Throw in the BMR setasides and the people are even happier.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 10:51 am

Honestly, I dont understand why SF needs to bear this brunt of growth and I think the more scrutiny that each development in the city goes through, the better off existing homeowners and renters (eg PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE) are.
You can drive in any direction for 15 minutes and be in wilderness. Let Marin densify, Let the east bay build more. SF has built itself up as more of an urban village than a big city and nothing should be done to ruin that feeling.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 11:30 am

All parts of the Bay Area are experiencing growth, and we need homes in all parts of it, excepting designated parkland which is why Marin cannot be built up so much.

As we run out of land, we will need to build higher, and luckily that is also the ebst way of building cheaper, helping affordability.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 11:58 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author