Waterfront height-limit proponents praise Warriors arena move

Waterfront height-limit proponents praise Warriors arena move

By : sfbg – excerpt

n another waterfront win, the Golden State Warriors have backed off their original arena site to another spot by the bay.

Multiple news outlets are reporting the proposed Warriors arena is moving from its contentious and hotly debated waterfront location at Piers 30-32 to what is now the home of Salesforce, in Mission Bay, a move praised by opponents of height-exceeding waterfront devleopment.

The story was first reported by Joe Eskenazi of the SF Weekly, and within the hour the Chronicle and San Francisco Business Times reported the move as well.

The Warriors’ original proposed arena site drew almost as much fire as the 8 Washington luxury condo waterfront project, which was overwhelmingly rejected by voters last November. Those against 8 Washington, and against the original Warriors site, argued that voters should have the right to weigh in on projects that exceed height limits on the waterfront.

Advocates against both waterfront projects praised the Warriors’ move.

“The Warriors have shifted to a smarter alternative because the people, not just the politicians, became involved in the process,” said former mayor Art Agnos, in a press statement. “Passing Prop. B is the next step to ensure that every other waterfront developer understands that the voice of the voters matters.”

Becky Evans, Sierra Club Bay Chapter Chair, evoked the imagery used to garner opposition to 8 Washington in her praise of the move. “We thank the Warriors,” she said, “for abandoning their wall on the waterfront.”

Yet the bid to protect the public’s views the bay doesn’t end at the Warriors’ arena

Yes on B is a June ballot initiative which would require waterfront projects exceeding height limits to seek voter approval. And importantly, the Warriors’ arena is only one of three height-limit exceeding properties currently proposed for the waterfront. Two additional projects are a large housing and retail site proposed by the San Francisco Giants at Pier 48/Seawall Lot 337 and a mixed use office, residential, and retail project by Forest City at Pier 70

Jon Golinger, Campaign Co-Chair of No Wall on the Waterfront, viewed the news as a victory.

“When the public gets involved with deciding the future of our waterfront we get better results,” he wrote in a press statement. “Passing Prop B is the only way to be sure that other crazy Port Commission schemes like the Giants’ plans to build 380 foot tall towers for luxury condos on waterfront open space, zoned for a public park, also gets the public scrutiny needed to turn them into sensible projects worthy of our unique waterfront.”…  (more)

We accept this as another battle won, even though we anticipate “unintended consequences”. That is the buzz phrase for the month, and the excuse for doing or not doing many things.
The most important part of those unintended consequences is to not ignore them when they stick their little heads up and introduce themselves.
Just because the voters got conned into accepting something once does not mean they can’t change their minds and turn unacceptable consequences into a bad memory.

Voter signatures to qualify waterfront height measure on ballot await certification

Voter signatures to qualify waterfront height measure on ballot await certification

by Joshua Sabatini : sfexaminer – excerpt




Voter signatures to qualify waterfront height measure on ballot await certification

by Joshua Sabatini

February 4, 2014

San Francisco voters could soon become the official guardians of the allowable height limits for The City’s prized waterfront property.

It appears more than enough signatures to place an initiative on waterfront height limits on the June ballot were submitted Monday to the Department of Elections. If the measure is approved, proposed developments that exceed current Port of San Francisco height regulations would be forced to receive voter approval. Waterfront height limits generally range from 40 to 105 feet.

While 9,702 valid signatures were required, proponents submitted 21,067, which were gathered in the past three weeks by 400 paid or volunteer workers. The department has 30 days to certify them. The effort comes on the heels of voters soundly defeating in November the 8 Washington St. luxury condo waterfront development, which the Board of Supervisors had approved… (more)

Warriors San Francisco Waterfront Arena Debate To Begin

Warriors San Francisco Waterfront Arena Debate To Begin

Reporting Chris Filippi : cbslocal.com – excerpt

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) — With the Golden State Warriors looking to build a new waterfront basketball arena, lawmakers in Sacramento will begin debating a bill on Monday that that could have an impact on the project.
Arena opponents are criticizing AB 1273; the California Assembly bill proposed by Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, which would clear the way for the development the stadium along Piers 30-32 along the city’s waterfront. They claim the bill strips the Bay Conservation and Development Commission of any oversight of the project.
“We really want to see the short cuts stop and let this project roll forward with the full and fair scrutiny that any other project of its size and significance would get in San Francisco,” Gayle Cahill, the San Francisco Waterfront Alliance president, said.
The whole process, she said, feels rushed… (more)

%d bloggers like this: