City of San Francisco Voter Approval of Waterfront Construction Exceeding Height Limits Initiative, Proposition B (June 2014)

Voting on Property
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local property Zoning and land use Property tax

A City of San Francisco Voter Approval of Waterfront Construction Exceeding Height Limits Initiative ballot question was on the June 3, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of San Francisco, California, where it was approved.

The measure required voter approval for any future construction projects on the San Francisco waterfront that exceeded existing height limits found in the zoning and construction code of the city. The measure postponed the construction of high-rise hotels and condo towers along the bay, in addition to three construction projects planned for the waterfront, until voters have a chance to approve or reject each one separately.

On February 3, 2014, many of the same activists who were active in the effort to shut down the 8 Washington Street waterfront development project in November of 2013 turned in 21,067 signatures - well above the required 9,702 valid signatures - to qualify this initiative for the ballot.

Aftermath

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Validity of measure; state law prohibits voters from having a direct say on the use of public waterfront
Court: Superior Court of San Francisco County
Ruling: Ruling declined, case going to trial in September 2017
Plaintiff(s): California State Lands Commission	Defendant(s): City and County of San Francisco
Plaintiff argument: The city does not have authority over waterfront property, and therefore neither do the city's voters	Defendant argument: The city and its voters do have authority over waterfront property

  Source: Superior Court of San Francisco County

The State Lands Commission filed a lawsuit opposing Proposition B on July 15, 2014. The lawsuit claimed the Proposition B protection of San Francisco's waterfront property is outside the scope of the city's authority, and therefore outside the scope of an initiative approved by city voters. The lawsuit claimed that while the City's Port Commission controls the waterfront in trust from the people of California due to a contract between the state and the city, the state legislature retains ownership and ultimate authority over the land. The argument essentially said that because the city's port commission receives its authority over the pier property from the state rather than from the city, the city has no say in property use or any restrictions on the development of the waterfront property. Jennifer Lucchesi, executive officer for the Lands Commission, said, "While the commission respects the power of the initiative as it relates to local and municipal affairs, when it comes to the management of state property including public-trust land, the Legislature has specifically delegated the management responsibility for those lands to the San Francisco Port Commission."

City officials promised to contest the lawsuit. Denying the validity of the Lands Commission's case, City Attorney Dennis Herrera said, "With [Tuesday's] lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative -- and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission -- affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid." Herrera continued, "That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere. While The City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public-trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco's voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city's waterfront is developed."

Tim Colen, the executive director for the Housing Action Coalition, sued the city in a pre-election effort to invalidate Proposition B on similar grounds, however lawsuit was dismissed by the courts. Colen, hopeful that the courts will be more thorough in the case after the election said, "We've always been convinced that Prop. B was illegal, and we hope that it will be tried now on its merits, which it never has been before. Now with the State Lands Commission taking action, finally we get to hear both sides argued. And let's see who prevails." Colen said that the post-election lawsuit filed by the State Lands Commission provided an arena for the first exacting legal scrutiny of Proposition B in courts and hopes the courts will rule it illegal.

On March 25, 2015, Judge Suzanne Bolanos of the Superior Court of San Francisco County chose not to throw out the lawsuit and allowed the suit to move forward. On June 28, 2017, Judge Bolanos declined to make a ruling on the case, choosing instead to send the case to trial in September 2017, when she will decide if the Pier 70 and San Francisco Giants' Mission Rock developments have illegally elevated local interests over statewide concerns regarding the waterfront. Judge Bolanos did state that the State Lands Commission had "failed to explain how or whether Proposition B's state intent conflicts with statewide interests."

Election results

Proposition B
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		71,421	58.88%
No		49,870	41.12%

Election results from San Fransisco Elections Office

Text of measure

Title and summary

The following ballot title and summary were issued by the city attorney for Proposition B:

“

Voter Approval for Waterfront Development Height Increases The City and County of San Francisco, through its Port Commission, owns and controls about 7 1/2 miles of the San Francisco waterfront along the San Francisco Bay. That property includes piers, land near the piers, and land on the wast side of The Embarcadero roadway. The City holds most of its waterfront in public trust for the benefit of all the State's people, and this public trust restricts the allowable uses of that property. In 1990 the City's voters adopted Proposition H, which required the City to prepare a comprehensive waterfront land use plan with maximum feasible public input. Consistent with Proposition H and the public trust requirements, the Port Commission adopted a comprehensive land use plan that governs acceptable waterfront uses. The City's zoning laws regulate development of buildings and other structures on that property, including the maximum allowed height. Generally, changes in the height limit require approval of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This measure would prevent any City agency or officer from permitting development on the waterfront to exceed the height limit in effect as of January 1, 2014, unless the City's voters approve the height limit increase. The measure defines "waterfront" as public trust property that the State transferred to the City to be placed under the control of the San Francisco Port Commission, as well as any other property that the Port owns or controls as of January 1, 2014 or later acquires. This measure also would require that the ballot question on the measure to increase height limits on any part of the waterfront specify both the existing and proposed height limits.

”

Full text

The full text of the ordinance enacted by Proposition B is available here.

Ballot Simplification Digest

The Ballot Simplification Committee produced the following summary and digest of Proposition B:

“

The Way It Is Now: The City and County of San Francisco, through its Port Commission, administers about 7-1/2 miles of the waterfront and former waterfront along the San Francisco Bay, including most of the property between Fisherman’s Wharf and India Basin. The Port’s property includes piers, land near the piers, and areas that were filled and are no longer adjacent to the Bay. The City acquired most of this property from the State of California and holds it in trust for the benefit of the people of California. State law restricts the allowable uses of this property. In 1990 the City’s voters adopted Proposition H, which required the City to prepare a Waterfront Land Use Plan with public input. The Port Commission adopted a comprehensive land use plan that governs acceptable waterfront uses consistent with Proposition H and public trust requirements. The City’s zoning laws regulate development on that property, including the maximum allowed height. The existing height limits generally range from 40 feet to 84 feet. Changes in existing height limits usually require neighborhood notification, public hearings, and approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. These changes do not require the voters to approve a ballot measure. The Proposal: Proposition B would prevent the City from allowing any development on Port property that exceeds the height limits in effect as of January 1, 2014, unless the City’s voters have first approved an increase in the height limit for that development. The measure applies to property currently under the control of the Port Commission, as well as any property that the Port may later acquire. Any ballot question to increase height limits on Port property must specify both existing and proposed height limits. A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to prevent the City from allowing any development on Port property to exceed the height limits in effect as of January 1, 2014, unless the City’s voters have approved a height limit increase. A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make this change.

”

Projects impacted by Proposition B

Golden State Warriors

Rendering of Golden State Warriors' arena project by Steelblue

The Golden State Warriors', the NBA team located in San Francisco, proposed and planned the construction of an 18,000-seat arena complex. This project would have required voter approval in a city-wide referendum to go forward under the proposed initiative. The arena would have been 125 feet tall and would have been located on Piers 30-32, an area which is currently zoned for buildings only 40 or fewer feet in height. According to some reports, the Warriors' team may have been willing to go to the voters for approval of their new arena, independent of the proposed initiative potentially forcing a referendum. The Warriors announced that Snøhetta and AECOM were selected to design the new arena. The team, however, opted to cancel their plan for Piers 30-32 and selected a location in the city's Mission Bay neighborhood for their proposed arena instead.

More images of the renderings for the proposed arena besides the one shown on the right are available here.

SF Giants project

The San Francisco Giants planned an urban neighborhood on what was their main parking lot. The development originally included 380-foot tall towers on areas that are zoned for open space, however, the plan was changed to limit heights to 240 feet. In addition, the plan called for 10 our of the 28 acres to contain buildings, and no buildings would rise within 100 feet of the bay. The development was placed on the ballot in November 2015, where it was approved by 74 percent of voters.

Pier 70 Development

See also: City of San Francisco Pier 70 Redevelopment Initiative, Proposition F (November 2014)

Forest City, which was planning a 28 acre Pier 70 development project as Proposition B petitioners were collecting signatures, decided to prepare for Prop. B approval by circulating a petition for its Pier 70 development initiative before Proposition B had even qualified for the June ballot. Its initiative sought voter approval for a project to build housing units and commercial space, which required increased height limit zoning. The development involved 69 acres located in the City’s Central Waterfront, generally between Mariposa and 22nd Street, east of Illinois Street.The initiative was approved in November 2014.

Hotels and condos

Another project that could have been impacted by Proposition B was a plan for Piers 30-32 that would have included multiple condos and a 227-room hotel. The project did not go through however, due to the fact that the piers may require up to $87 million in repairs.

Support

"Yes on B" campaign image

Supporters

Many of the same activists who supported the November effort to shut down the 8 Washington Street waterfront development project in November of 2013 were behind this initiative. These supporters included the San Francisco chapter of the Sierra Club and limited-growth activists as well as the No Wall on the Waterfront campaign committee. They argued that the measure was designed to protect the waterfront against politically powerful developers side-stepping construction rules put in place by the voters as part of a comprehensive waterfront development plan in 1990.

Jon Golinger, campaign director for the measure, said, "What this initiative says is, respect the plan that's already in place and if you want to change it, don't try to do it behind closed doors. Do it in the light of day, and let the people have a say."

The Sierra Club, the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and the Affordable Housing Alliance collaborated to produce the official arguments in favor of Proposition B and the official "Yes on B" campaign.

Arguments in favor

The following was submitted as the official argument in favor of Proposition B:

Campaign finance

As of February 4, 2014, the latest campaign filings showed a couple that lives in Golden Gateway Apartments was the sole contributor to the petition campaign. Barbara and Richard Stewart provided $75,000 to support this initiative and were also large backers of the campaign opposed to the 8 Washington Street development.

Editorials

• The San Francisco Examiner:

“	It’s important that San Franciscans are involved in their city, be it when electing leaders, participating in the community or deciding what the future skyline might look like. At its core, the June ballot measure Proposition B seeks to give the people more tools in civil discourse. [...] We are urging voters to stand behind the new Prop. B. Our waterfront is a place that needs careful and attentive stewardship, and if that means letting citizens be a more active part of the political process over its future, then that’s a good result. Prop. B backers make the case that this extra level of protection — an “insurance policy,” as they call it — is needed because the waterfront is a public resource beyond compare. They contend that developers and politicians don’t always have the public’s best interest at heart. We would like to think those concerns are unfounded, but it can’t hurt to make sure.	”
—San Francisco editorial board

Opposition

Opponents

• A lawsuit was filed against the initiative on behalf of three individuals, including a leader of the local Building and Construction Trades union. This suit was being funded by developers and development interests, including the San Francisco Giants. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Marla Miller ruled that the plaintiffs did not present enough evidence to keep the measure from the ballot and ordered the election to go forward.

• The San Francisco Democratic Party narrowly voted 13 against 12 to oppose Proposition B.

The following individuals signed the official arguments against Proposition B:

• Tim Colen, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
• Mike Theriault, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council
• Corinne Woods, Mission Creek resident

Arguments against

Opponents of Proposition B said it would unnecessarily involve voters in the complicated process of deciding what is best for the future of the waterfront of San Francisco, delaying or stopping projects important in making San Francisco thrive economically.

They also argued in court that to control the development of the waterfront did not belong to the jurisdiction of the city and, therefore, was outside the authority of an initiative approved by city voters.

C.W. Nevius wrote an opinion piece against Proposition B that was published by the San Francisco Chronicle. In it he wrote:

“	First, if this is such a good idea, why stop there? Shouldn't other neighborhoods be able to vote on height limitations? Or homeless shelters. Or Muni routes? Or whether the mayor should have soup or salad for lunch? Elections are expensive and time consuming. They're also a formula for gridlock. The Giants have prepared a terrific plan for a retail center on their parking lot A. Now they might have to prepare an election strategy.	”
—C.W. Nevius

Official arguments

The following was submitted as the official argument in opposition to Proposition B:

Editorials

• The San Francisco Chronicle:

“	Proposition B, which enshrines ballot-box planning as the essential arbiter of one of San Francisco's most precious spaces, is loaded with potential for unintended consequences. It's easy politics and lousy public policy. [...] The last thing a city that desperately needs more housing should be doing is adding another layer of uncertainty, delay and expense to processes that already stack years and six-figure costs onto each new residence. Developers are going to do almost anything to avoid campaigns that will cost them millions, and subject their projects to further shakedowns by interest groups, while leaving themselves vulnerable to the whims of a clever slogan. Voters need to take a close look at Proposition B. They may just find that it works against the goals it espouses. Vote no on Proposition B.	”
—San Francisco Chronicle editorial board

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

On February 3, 2014, many of the same activists who were active in the effort to shut down the 8 Washington Street waterfront development project in November of 2013 turned in 21,067 signatures. The San Francisco Department of Elections had until March 5, 2014, to certify that at least 9,702 of these signatures were valid, qualifying the initiative for the June ballot. There were more than enough valid signatures among those submitted to put Proposition B on the ballot.

Lawsuits

On February 14, 2014, several large developers and their supporters, including the San Francisco Giants, backed the filing of a lawsuit attempting to keep the initiative off the ballot. The lawsuit claimed that the measure would intrude on the jurisdiction of the state and the Port Commission over the shoreline and waterfront. On March 19, 2014, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Marla Miller ruled in favor of the defendants of Proposition B and ordered the election to go forward.

Plaintiffs

The attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Robin Johansen, argued that a city initiative cannot regulate "state lands that are held in trust for all the people of the state, not just San Franciscans." She also argued that the state "has expressly prohibited those lands from being subject to local initiatives," pointing to a 1968 law that gave the Port Commission, rather than the City of San Francisco, authority over waterfront planning. Johansen also stated that the city's charter also gives waterfront planning authority to the commission.

Defendants

Jon Golinger, director of the No Wall on the Waterfront campaign, who supported the initiative, said in response to plaintiffs' arguments that the developers used a city initiative measure about shoreline height limits to try to approve the 8 Washington Street Development project, implying hypocrisy. Golinger also referred to the history of waterfront construction regulation to illustrate a precedent of city involvement and authority. He cited a voter initiative that prohibited hotels on city piers and put a temporary stop to construction on the waterfront in 1990. Golinger said, "They're trying to keep the voters of San Francisco from weighing in on the future of the waterfront that belongs to all of us." He continued, saying, "Zoning ordinances regulate the height of waterfront land. The Port Commission has abided by this."

Ruling

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Marla Miller ruled on March 19, 2014, that the plaintiffs did not present enough evidence to keep the measure from the ballot and ordered the election to go forward. Judge Miller however did not rule on the merits of the legal complaints brought against the measure, saying that the measure should go through a "full, unhurried briefing" and detailed scrutiny in court. This left Proposition B open to post-election lawsuits. In answer to the allegation of plaintiffs that the waterfront was outside city jurisdiction, Miller wrote that there was a precedent of many other initiatives and referendums proposed to control uses of San Francisco waterfront lands and that Prop. B opponents "have not clearly established that the challenge is meritorious such that it justifies the 'dramatic step' of withholding the measure from voters."

Appeal

Opponents of the initiative, still supported in part by the San Francisco Giants and other development interests, filed an appeal of Judge Miller's original ruling, rehashing their claim that Proposition B violated the jurisdiction and authority of the state and the port commission. They also argued that the initiative must be blocked from the ballot because it threatened to delay or halt projects that were essential to the economic well being of the city and the state. Certain development projects that had already been planned and could be impacted by Proposition B would result in an additional 3,690 housing units and almost eight and a half billion dollars in port revenue.

Attorney Robin Johansen filed a case with appellate court, writing, "Allowing the election to go forward will halt or indefinitely delay projects that the Port Commission and the legislature have determined are essential to providing revenue to repair and maintain the city's seawall and historic waterfront structures that are at risk from earthquakes and sea level rise. These projects are too important to statewide interests to be subject to the vagaries of the local election process."

Jim Stearns, who worked in support of Proposition B as a political consultant, said, "The Giants support our right to vote on who goes to the All-Star Game but not on what gets built on our waterfront. With all due respect to the All-Stars, that's pretty messed up."

The appeal was denied without a hearing on March 27, 2014.

Similar measures

City of Sacramento Voter approval for Public Funding of Professional Sports Arena Act, STOP Initiative (June 2014)
City of Columbus Blue Jackets’ Nationwide Arena Bailout Initiative (May 2014)
d 8 Washington Street-Referendum, Proposition C (November 2013)
d 8 Washington Street Development-Initiative, Proposition B (November 2013)

See also

• Notable local measures on the ballot
• June 3, 2014 ballot measures in California
• San Francisco County, California ballot measures

External links

Suggest a link

• Golden State Warriors website, Arena Design Renderings," accessed February 4, 2014
• San Francisco Elections Department website, "San Francisco Planning Department analysis of Proposition B," accessed March 10, 2014

Additional reading

Post-election news

• The San Francisco Examiner, "Judge allows lawsuit challenging Prop B to go forward," March 25, 2015

Pre-election news

• Beyond Chron, "Will SF Waterfront Initiative Be Removed from Ballot?" February 13, 2014
• San Francisco Chronicle, "Suit challenges ballot measure on waterfront height limits," February 15, 2014
• The Examiner, "Allegations fly in waterfront height limit ballot measure fight," February 24, 2014
• San Francisco Chronicle, "Waterfront height-limit foes want measure taken off SF ballot," March 5, 2014
• San Francisco Chronicle, "Judge rejects effort to kill high-rise measure Prop. B," March 19, 2014
• San Francisco Weekly, "Waterfront Height Initiative: Jon Golinger Calls off his "Political Theater" ... UPDATE: Judge Keeps Measure on Ballot," March 19, 2014
• San Francisco Weekly, "Swing for the Fences: The Giants' Odd Pitch for Their Waterfront Lawsuit," April 2, 2014
• San Francisco Chronicle online, "Prop. B prompts Pier 70 developers to prepare for November ballot," May 16, 2014