On the waterfront - Page 3

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.

The plan also specifies acceptable uses for its various waterfront properties. Residential isn't listed as an acceptable use for either Pier 48 or Seawall Lot 337, both of which are slated mostly for open space and maritime uses. Office space and entertainment venues are also not deemed allowable uses on either property, although it does list retail as an allowable use on Pier 48.

By contrast, Piers 30-32 and the adjacent Seawall Lot 330 were envisioned by the plan to allow all the uses proposed for it: "Assembly and Entertainment" and retail on the piers and residential, hotels, and retail on the property across the street — but not at the heights that are being proposed.

The plan calls Pier 70 a "mixed use opportunity area" that allows most uses, but not hotels or residential, despite current plans that call for construction of about 1,000 homes at the site to help fund historic preservation efforts.

Slaughter answered questions about her project's lack of compliance with the WLUP by saying, "The whole project is going through a community planning process."

Yet Agnos said that neither that process nor the current makeup of the Port or Mayor's Office can get the best deal for the public against rich, sophisticated teams of developers, investors, and professional sports franchises.

"They don't have the expertise for the multi-billion-dollar deals that are in front of them," Agnos said of the Port of San Francisco. "The new identity for San Francisco's Port is it has the most valuable land in the country, and maybe the most valuable land in the world."


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.